






.•Ji^' ^-„./ /i<\¥A% ^^,*^ /^fe' 

















1*2^" o°l«* '"^ 



"^" .1;^% '^•f* ^p'^.,'\L!'' /^o. 





■» o 














» 







■^^0^ 




THE LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS 
DEBATES 

In the Senatorial Campaign of 18^8 in Illinois, between 

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen -Arnold Douglas; 

containing also Lincoln's Address at 

Cooper Institute 

WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES 

BV 

ARCHIBALD LEWIS BOUTON, M.A. 
Assistant Professor of English in New York University 




NEW YORK 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 






Copyright, 1905 

BY 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 



/^/ 



!! 



PREFACE 

In his " Twenty Years of Congress," James G. 
Blaine characterizes the Lincoln-Douglas debates 
of 1858 as " a discussion which at the time was so 
interesting as to enchain the attention of a nation, 
in its immediate effect so striking as to effect the 
organization of parties, in its subsequent effect so 
powerful as to change the fate of millions." But 
both as historical documents and as masterpieces of 
the art of debate they are little known by the present 
generation. The editor of these selections has pre- 
pared them for the sake of their indisputable value 
in both respects. As a teacher of argumentation 
he has felt the lack of available material illustrative 
of the thrust-and-parry of actual debate, and de- 
signs this volume to supply what is almost a total 
deficiency among edited specimens of argument. 

Of the seven joint debates of the campaign the 
speeches in three are printed entire — those in the 
debates at Freeport, at Galesburgh, and at Alton; 
being the second, fifth, and seventh of the series. 
They took place before audiences ranging in politi- 
cal sympathy from a strongly preponderant aboli- 
tion sentiment at Freeport, to an equally preponder- 
ant pro-slavery sentiment at Alton. Their subject 
matter includes all the essential issues of the cam- 



CONTENTS 

Introduction ix 

Lincoln's Springfield Speech 1 

Second Joint Debate at Freeport 14 

Fifth Joint Debate at Galesburgh 79 

The Seventh Joint Debate at Alton .... 142 

Lincoln's Address at Cooper Institute .... 215 

Notes 247 



INTRODUCTION 

The senatorial campaign of 1858 in Illinois de- 
rives its historical importance from the fact that 
its influence was decisive in determining the political 
crisis of i860. Before the great series of debates 
with Stephen A. Douglas in that campaign, Abra- 
ham Lincoln was a figure of local significance. As a 
result of what was essentially his forensic victory 
in the struggle with Douglas, he came to share with 
William H. Seward the leadership of the national 
Republican party, and entered naturally upon the 
path that led to the presidency in i860. Before 
that campaign, Douglas, whose equal as a par- 
liamentary debater and party organizer Amer- 
ican history has hardly produced, had been for 
eight years the most forceful leader of the Demo- 
cratic party, and the most conspicuous figure in 
national politics. As a result of the debates 
with Lincoln, the support of the South, upon which 
he had need to depend for furtherance of his 
ambition to become president, was irreparably 
lost, and the great national party whose candidate 
he hoped to be was broken in twain. Beginning 
with this campaign the long struggle against 
slavery entered, therefore, upon its final phase. The 



X INTRODUCTION 

ultimate leader in the struggle of a century to over- 
throw slavery had appeared. 

The speeches comprising the body of this volume 
contain a full statement — perhaps the best state- 
ment — of the slavery question as it appeared at 
that time to two classes of people: those who in 
varying degrees favored the institution of slavery, 
and those who, though they did not yet aim to 
exterminate slavery from the states in which it was 
rooted, were seeking to prevent its extension to 
soil upon which it was not yet established. 

The fundamental issue of 1858 — the right or 
wrong of slavery — in its broad and universal 
statement of moral principle needs little elucida- 
tion for the student of to-day. But the political 
aspects under which it presented itself at that time 
are less familiar, and along with the party politics 
and the personalities of the hour deserve explana- 
tion. It is the purpose of this introduction briefly 
to set forth the origin of the three kinds of issues 
v/hich appear in the debates — questions of principle, 
questions of party politics, questions arising from 
attacks made by either candidate upon the political 
acts of the other; also to supplement this account 
with some portraiture of the debaters themselves 
as they appeared to those who listened, and to give 
a general description of the great contest which 
they waged. 

The invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney 
in 1793 multiplied by fifty the amount of cotton 
which a single laborer could separate from the 



INTRODUCTION xi 

cotton seed in a day's work. This single invention 
made possible an increase of one thousand fold in 
the annual production of cotton in the South be- 
tween 1 791 and i860. Upon this economic basis the 
institution of slavery which, it had been confidently 
supposed by all statesmen, South as well as North, 
was in process of extinction, reared a more sig- 
nificant growth, and became a social and political 
factor of the most formidable magnitude. But for 
the cotton-gin Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky 
would have been reclaimed from slaver} , and Mis- 
souri would never have had it. After 1793 the pros- 
perity of the South was founded upon cotton, and 
cotton fostered slavery. " That slavery is a blessing 
and cotton is king were associated ideas, with which 
the Southern mind was imbued in the decade be- 
before the war." ^ 

The moral sense of the evil of slavery awakened 
but slowly in the North, and the people of that 
section were little inclined to attack the institution 
except when the extension of slavery to new terri- 
tory was involved. The early Abolitionists of the 
Garrisonian type — radicals who denounced the Con- 
stitution as " an agreement with Hell " because it 
temporized with slavery — were nearly as hateful to 
the average Northern mind as to the Southern; 
nor did they ever become numerically representa- 
tive of Northern opinion. The aggressive acts of 
practical Northern statesmen in opposition to 

* James Ford Rhodes* History of the United States, 
Vol. i. p. 27. 



xii INTRODUCTION 

slavery were limited to thwarting its growth. Be- 
fore 1861 no Free-Soiler, no Republican ever, with 
the sanction of his party, maintained that under 
the Constitution of the United States there could 
be any interference from an external source with 
slavery in any state where it already existed. The 
aspect in which the slavery problem presented itself 
to the American people, therefore, throughout the 
long period from the admission of Missouri until 
the outbreak of the Civil War, was, whether slavery 
should be permitted to extend its sway into terri- 
tory where it was not already a recognized institu- 
tion. Chiefly the question was: Shall slavery be 
sanctioned in the National Territory and in the 
new states from time to time to be formed out of 

ity 

Whether the admission of Missouri in 1820 
was at stake, or the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, or 
the admission of California in 1850, or the passage 
of the Fugitive Slave Law in the same year, or 
the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, or the Dred 
Scott decision, or the Lecompton Constitution pro- 
posed for Kansas in 1857; the broad outlines of 
the general problem remained the same. 

Thoughtful men in the years before the great 
crisis grouped themselves upon this general ques- 
tion in ways which the party lines of any given 
time only imperfectly represented. First, there 
were the extreme radicals : on the side of the South 
they were the " Fire-eaters," who were willing to 
use any means to extend slavery ; on the side of the 



INTRODUCTION xiii 

North they were the Abolitionists, who, with Gar- 
rison, believed slavery '' a damning crime " with 
which no compromise was possible, and who pro- 
posed the immediate freedom and enfranchisement 
of the negroes. To gain their end they would, 
like the " Fire-eaters," sacrifice the Constitution 
and the Union itself. Then there were those of 
more moderate views, embracing the great bulk of 
people of all parties who lay between these two 
extremes. The mass of people in the South deemed 
slavery the real source of their prosperity, and be- 
came ultimately convinced of its soundness in 
principle. They further believed that its existence 
was sanctioned by the Constitution throughout the 
Union wherever people chose to have it. Yet until 
late in the decade preceding the War of Secession 
they continued for the most part to subordinate 
their interpretation of the rights of slavery to the 
maintenance of the Union. The mass of people in 
the North deemed slavery wrong, but they believed 
there was no constitutional sanction for interfering 
with it in states where it already existed, and they 
deprecated any action respecting it which might 
endanger the Union. In addition to these four 
classes, " there were men so constituted that they 
could decline to take any thought whether slavery 
were right or wrong, and could deal with every 
question that arose concerning it as a question of 
expediency, or of law and precedent."^ 

1 William G. Brown : Stephen Arnold Douglas, p. 65. 
(Riverside Biographical Series.) An admirable summary. 



XIV IN TROD I ACTION 

Except for the radicals, the people of all parties 
and sections were in a mood, whatever their specific 
political creed, which did not preclude the possi- 
bility of compromise. Until the actual dawn of 
Secession, the history of the slavery question in 
America is a history of compromises between the 
effort of the slave states to extend their influence 
into new territory, and the gradually awakening 
moral opposition of the free states. Contributing 
to the tendency to compromise was a strong feeling 
that the slavery question was not a proper political 
issue. The greater parties were accordingly slow 
to formulate a definite policy respecting it. Until 
the formation of the Republican party in 1856, 
both of the great parties of the country, the Whigs 
and the Democrats, drew support from Northern 
and Southern states alike. The Whigs, Northern 
and Southern, and the Democrats, Southern and 
Northern, differed within their own ranks upon 
the Fugitive Slave Law, upon the extension of 
slavery to the territories, upon its suppression in 
the District of Columbia, and upon other questions 
of policy respecting slavery ; but they tried to keep 
these differences, however intense, out of their 
party platforms, and, so long as it remained possi- 
ble, deprecated the division of national parties 
upon sectional lines. The Liberty party in the 
North, the party of the Abolitionists, did, it is true, 
from 1840 to 1850 antagonize slavery in the main 
plank of its platform, just as the Prohibition party 
to-day antagonizes liquor selling; but the party 



INTRODUCTION xv 

drew small electoral support and exerted only a 
moral influence. Not until after 1854 did the 
slavery question dominate all party platforms. 

In 1848, the year when the Whigs elected Gen- 
eral Taylor to the presidency, the slavery issue had 
advanced to a new and threatening aspect. Political 
power in Congress stood evenly poised between 
fifteen slave and fifteen free states. Slavery and 
the slave trade prevailed in the District of Colum- 
bia. An obsolete law compelling the return of 
fugitive slaves who escaped into free territory en- 
cumbered the statute books. By the terms of the 
famous Missouri Compromise of 1820, in all of the 
territory of the Louisiana Purchase lying north of 
latitude 36° 30', slavery had been forever forbidden, 
except in the Territory of Missouri, then promised 
admission to the Union, and formally admitted 
in 1821 with a state constitution which for- 
bade the legislature to make any restrictions 
upon slavery. In the territory south of 36° 30', 
slavery was permitted. This Act of Congress, 
though capable of repeal like any other act, 
had been enacted with such assurance by all parties 
that it was to be a permanent settlement of the 
whole controversy over slavery, and had so long 
stood the test of time, that it seemed to have the 
stability and authority of an article of the Constitu- 
tion. All these features of the situation as it 
existed in 1848 seemed not inconsistent with con- 
tinued quiet. But the fruits of the Mexican war — 
the territory out of which California, New Mexico, 



xvi INTRODUCTION 

and Utah were afterward formed — had been ceded 
by Mexico in a treaty signed in the February pre- 
ceding General Taylor's election. The Southern 
element in Congress, already accused of plotting 
to secure the admission of Texas and of fomenting 
the Mexican war as a means of adding new slave 
territory to the United States, now manifested a 
definite design to open this territory to slavery. 
But no legislation had been so far enacted. 
The Wilmot Proviso, introduced in Congress in 
1846 by David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, propos- 
ing to prohibit slavery in all territory to be ac- 
quired from Mexico, after uniting Northern sen- 
timent against slavery as it had never been 
united before, had failed to pass after arousing 
extraordinary debate. 

The disposition of this new territory in the 
Southwest, respecting slavery, was the nucleus of 
a growing and ominous unrest. In 1850 California, 
of her own motion, applied for admission to the 
Union with a state constitution prohibiting slavery. 
Since 1792-3 Congress had followed the general 
policy of admitting states to the Union in pairs, 
one slave and one free, so as to preserve the balance 
of power between the slave and the free states. 
But to pair with California no slave territory stood 
ready for statehood. The South opposed the ad- 
mission of California except upon the principle of 
compensation. Thus was constituted a complex 
problem of many aspects: the South wished to 
open the territories of New Mexico and Utah to 



INTRODUCTION xvii 

slavery ; she desired the enactment of a more effi- 
cient law for the recovery of fugitive slaves ; from 
some quarters of the South came the demand that 
Texas be divided into four states, according to a 
privilege reserved by the national government when 
Texas was admitted to the Union. Texas herself 
presented for settlement certain monetary claims 
and a troublesome boundary dispute with New 
Mexico. From the North, on the other hand, 
came demands for the prohibition of the interstate 
slave trade ; for the suppression of both slavery and 
the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and 
for the passage of the Wilmot Proviso. 

After a long struggle out of the flux of contend- 
ing interests emerged at last, under the leadership 
of Henry Clay and Stephen A. Douglas, the great 
Compromise of 1850. By the terms of this agree- 
ment California was admitted as a free state; the 
1 remainder of the area ceded by Mexico was formed 
j into territories with no restriction as to slavery; 
a new law for the recovery of fugitive slaves was 
enacted ; Texas received $10,000,000 in lieu of all 
her claims, including those in the boundary dis- 
pute with New Mexico; and the slave trade, but 
not slavery, was prohibited in the District of 
Columbia. No mention in the final settlement 
was made of the interstate slave trade, or of the 
proposition to divide Texas into four states. The 
debates in Congress upon these measures furnish 
much of the most splendid oratory in our legisla- 
tive history. In the galaxy of speakers were 



xviii I NT ROD UCTION 

Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Cass, Benton — veteran 
leaders all — and the bold and youthful Douglas. 
All of them save Calhoun believed, or hoped, that 
now an ulthnate settlement of the problem of 
slavery was reached. When Douglas returned 
from Washington to his home in Illinois it was 
with the declaration that he never expected to ad- 
dress Congress again upon any aspect of the 
slavery problem. 

Douglas's share in the legislation of 1850 made 
him a national leader of the Democratic party. 
Born in Vermont in 181 3, and emigrating first to 
New York and afterward to Illinois, he had made 
himself leader of the Jacksonian Democracy in his 
neighborhood before he was twenty-one years of 
age. Great personal magnetism, extraordinary 
energy of character and strength of intellect, and 
remarkable skill in debate, joined to a comprehen- 
sive knowledge of the political history of his 
country, prognosticated a rise in political station, 
almost unexampled in its swiftness and its au- 
dacity. By his discomfiture of a local orator of 
some repute, Douglas, who, though somewhat less 
than five feet in stature,^ possessed a great voice, 
a deep chest and a massive head, gained with his 
first political address the nickname of " The Little 
Giant," an epithet which clung to him throughout 
his career. Beginning as district-attorney, he was 
next elected to the state legislature in 1836, where 

* Henry Villard, in his Memoirs (Vol. i. p. 55), says 
that Douglas was "not over four and a half feet high." 



INTRODUCTION xix 

he was fellow-member with the Whig representa- 
tive from Sangamon County, Abraham Lincoln, 
a quaint, ungainly person nearly two feet taller 
than Douglas, noted at that time for his rugged 
honesty and his knack at story-telling. Rivals the 
two men shortly became, but strangely enough, not 
in politics, but for the hand of Mary Todd, a young 
woman whom Lincoln subsequently married. 
Otherwise the race was for long to the swifter 
Douglas. In 1841, after serving a brief appoint- 
ment as Secretary of State in Illinois, he was 
elected by the legislature, when he was twenty- 
eight years old, a justice of the Supreme Court. 
Two years later, when he was already leader of 
his party in the state, he entered Congress as a 
representative. 

In the House his aggressive energy made an im- 
mediate impression. How he appeared as an orator 
to a contemporary of elegant and classical taste is 
revealed in a passage in the diary of John Quincy 
Adams : " His face was convulsed, his gesticula- 
tion frantic, and he lashed himself into such a heat 
that if his body had been of combustible matter it 
would have burnt out. In the midst of his roaring, 
to save himself from choking, he stripped and cast 
away his cravat, unbuttoned his waistcoat, and had 
the air and aspect of a half-naked pugilist. And 
this man comes from a judicial bench and passes 
for an eloquent orator ! " But to other observers 
he seemed the personification of the virility, the 
constructive force, and the simplicity of the new 



XX INTRODUCTION 

and great West.^ And before he entered the Senate 
in 1846 he had taken on all the external refinement 
of Washington life without loss of native strength. 
From the first he was the exponent of a vigorous 
foreign policy, and the advocate of internal im- 
provements upon a comprehensive scale. Upon 
the moral aspect of slavery Douglas was indiffer- 
ent. He was one of those " who could deal with 
every question concerning it as a question of ex- 
pediency or of law and precedent." Never in his 
public career did he admit that slavery was wrong. 
His opponents asserted, and historians believe, that, 
while Douglas was animated by a genuine desire 
for the development of the material resources, and 
the expansion of the national territory and power 
of America, he was nevertheless an unsafe guide 
in the moral issues of politics, either because he 
was controlled by an overmastering ambition for 
political power, or because he was incapable of 
acute moral discernment. 

Thus appeared Stephen A. Douglas to his con- 
temporaries in 1850. Already he was, at thirty-seven, 
the guiding spirit of his party in Congress ; and for 
ten years to come he was to be the boldest and most 
skillful leader, the readiest debater and the most 
superb fighter in American politics. Throughout 
that fateful decade he was destined to be the cen- 
tral actor in the mighty national drama. 

1 See quotation from J. J. Ampere's Promenade en 
Amerique, in J. F. Rhodes' History of the United States, 
Vol. i. p. 245, 



INTRODUCTION xxi 

For four years the country dwelt in comparative 
freedom from the slavery agitation. Forty-four 
leading members of Congress from free and slave 
States alike signed an agreement that they v^ould 
not support for any office whatever any man " who 
was not known to oppose the renewal, in any form, 
1^ of agitation upon the subject of slavery." ^ Pro- 
foundly unpopular was Sumner's early attempt to 
revive in Congress the discussion of the Fugitive 
Slave Law. With the laurels of the achieved com- 
promise bright upon his head, Douglas was a 
prominent candidate of the younger Democracy for 
the presidential nomination of 1852. But he, like 
Cass, his chief rival, lacked Southern support, and 
the nomination passed to Franklin Pierce. 

For two years longer quiet prevailed. Suddenly 
with hardly the shadow of a warning, and according 
to his subsequent statement, entirely upon his own 
initative, Douglas on January 4, 1854, reported from 
the Committee on Territories a bill to organize the 
territory of Nebraska out of the great area, north 
and west of IMissouri, which lay wholly north of 
latitude 36° 30'. The startling feature of the pro- 
posal was a clause authorizing the people of the 
proposed territory to decide for themselves whether 
they would have slavery or not. On January 23, 
Douglas substituted for this measure the famous 
Kansas-Nebraska bill, which differed from its pre- 
decessor only in two particulars. In its final form 

^J. F. Rhodes' History of the United States, Vol. i. p. 
207. 



xxii INTRODUCTION 

it affirmed that the slavery restriction of the Mis- 
souri Compromise was inconsistent with the prin- 
ciples of the legislation of 1850, and was therefore 
inoperative and void ; and it further divided the 
territory described in the former bill into two 
parts, the northern to be called Nebraska, and the 
southern, Kansas. 

Throughout the country the measure produced 
the most violent sensation. To the South it was 
an enormous concession, for it meant the repeal of 
the rock-ribbed Missouri Compromise. By infer- 
ence it opened the whole of the national territory 
to slavery, subject only to the will of the territorial 
inhabitants. It meant the abdication by Congress 
of the right, hitherto never seriously questioned, 
to exercise absolute authority over the affairs of 
the territories. In the North no Southern aggres- 
sion ever provoked such stupendous and unanimous 
wrath. In mass meetings, in the press and the 
pulpit, in petitions to Congress, and the protests of 
legislatures, popular indignation gave a vast and 
weighty utterance. Except in Illinois, the Demo- 
cratic party throughout the North at first neither 
desired nor dared to support Douglas. No politi- 
cal leader was ever more execrated. By his own 
declaration he *' could have travelled from Boston 
to Chicago by the light of his own burning 
effigies." ^ 

The principle embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill was called the principle of '' popular sove- 

1 W. G. Brown : Stephen A. Douglas, p. 86. 



INTRODUCTION xxiii 

reignty." It was not a new one. In 1847 Lewis 
Cass had written a letter to one Nicholson in Nash- 
ville, Tenn., in which he proposed to settle the 
slavery question in the territories in a very simple 
way. It was to permit the people of each territory 
to determine for themselves whether they should 
have slavery or not. This plan seemed to accord 
with the democratic principle of individual liberty 
which has at all times lain at the foundation of 
our government. Cass favored it because he did 
not believe Congress had the right to legislate upon 
the domestic institutions of the territories, and be- 
cause the slavery question was exactly of the sort 
which the people of a territory should determine 
for themselves. As a solution of the slavery prob- 
lem " popular sovereignty " evaded all responsi- 
bility on the part of the national government for 
the conduct of domestic affairs in the territories. 
Douglas early seized upon the principle, made it 
his own, and to the outbreak of war continued to 
maintain it in debate, and sought to embody it in 
legislation. As applied to the state of the slavery 
question in 1854, " popular sovereignty " was 
inconsistent with the provisions of the Mis- 
souri Compromise, which excluded slavery from 
all territory north of latitude 30° 30', except in 
Missouri. It was in conflict also with an ex- 
treme Southern doctrine, which maintained that 
the right to hold slaves as property was one 
with which neither Congress nor any territorial 
legislature had the right to interfere. It was 



XXIV INTRODUCTION 

contrary, finally, to the doctrine that human bond- 
age was a moral wrong, for the existence of which 
the national government was responsible wherever 
its authority was supreme. Such was the principle 
of popular, or '' squatter " sovereignty, which 
aroused so profoundly the antagonism of the 
North. 

In Congress the bill was bitterly assailed. In 
the Senate, Chase of Ohio, and Seward of New 
York, and Sumner of Massachusetts, with others, 
denounced it as a betrayal of the North by its re- 
peal of the Compromise of 1820, and as part of a 
plot to nationalize slavery ; and they accused Doug- 
las of bidding, by the bill, for Southern support 
for the presidential nomination of 1856. But in the 
face of the storm Douglas did not quail. One by 
one he met in debate and overcame the ablest 
leaders of the opposition. The severe logic of 
Chase, the lofty moral indignation of Sumner, the 
polished periods of Everett, the adroitness of 
Seward with his clear vision of high moral law 
were no match in hand-to-hand debate for the 
astute resourcefulness of the bold and masterful 
Douglas. 

Little by little he brought into line behind him the 
amazed and partially disaffected elements of his 
party in Congress. In spite of the feeling which 
convulsed the North there was no revolt against 
the powerful party organization in the upper and 
lower houses of legislation, of which Douglas was 
the undisputed head. To thwart the attempt of 



INTRODUCTION xxv 

Chase to divide the Northern and Southern wings 
of his party by shrewd amendments to the bill, 
and to calm the Northern Democracy, who feared 
the measure was the beginning of a conspiracy to 
nationalize slavery, he inserted this amending 
clause : '' It being the true intent and meaning of 
this bill not to legislate slavery into any territory 
or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the inhabitants thereof perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States." Against the accusation that he was guilty 
of political unfaith in moving the appeal of the 
Missouri Compromise, he ingeniously contended 
that the repeal had in effect been accomplished by 
the legislation of the Compromise of 1850, wherein 
Utah and New iMexico were allowed to determine 
for themselves whether or not they should admit 
slavery. 1 Thus, declared Douglas, the principle of 
popular sovereignty, or congressional non-inter- 
vention, was made to supersede the principle of 
1820, the congressional prohibition of slavery north 
of latitude 36° 30'. 

Step by step the bill was driven to its passage. 
On March 3, 1854, it passed the Senate by a vote 
of 2*/ to 14. One month later it passed the House, 
and in May, President Pierce made it a law by his 

1 It was of some significance that part of Utah lay north 
of latitude 36° 30', though that area was not a portion of 
the territory of the Louisiana Purchase, originally affected 
by the Missouri Compromise. 



xxvi INTRODUCTION 

signature. No more amazing personal triumph 
than this of Douglas has occurred in our history; 
nor so great and fateful a sacrifice of national 
peace to individual ambition. Yet, from the point 
of view of those who believed in slavery and of 
those also who were indifferent to its moral wrong, 
it can, now as then, be maintained that the policy 
of Douglas, while great with ambition, was neither 
inconsistent, dishonest, nor insincere. 

Anger and turmoil throughout the North greeted 
the passage of the bill. Upon his return to Chicago 
Douglas stood for four consecutive hours before a 
huge mass meeting attempting to make his great 
voice heard in his defense ; but in vain. That night 
Douglas was set upon and was in danger of his life. 
Throughout the country party lines were broken up, 
and all party organizations were either in dissolu- 
tion, or in a state which seemed to forbode it. The 
Democratic party itself, the party of Douglas, was 
shaken to its foundation. The old Whig party had 
been crushed in 1852 in the victory of Pierce, be- 
cause of its incapacity to meet the rising issues of 
the time, and no organization had yet filled its 
place. The Free-Soilers, the successors of the 
Liberty party, the heirs to its opposition to the ex- 
tension of slavery, had been, though yet a minor 
party, of growing significance. The " Know- 
Nothings," embracing a small proportion of the 
Whigs and some Democrats, stood upon a curious 
platform of opposition to foreigners and Roman 
Catholics; but this party had no promise of per- 



INTRODUCTION xxvii 

marience. The wrong of slavery, its aggressive 
purpose, its threatened domination of the country 
broke upon the aroused moral vision of the North 
in all their naked enormity. To all people and 
parties alike, it was apparent that slavery was the 
inevitable problem of the hour; that compromise 
would be extremely difficult if not henceforward 
impossible. Upon the general platform of opposi- 
tion to the Kansas-Nebraska Act gradually as- 
sembled a body of voters who first called themselves 
the Anti-Nebraska men. They ultimately included 
most of the old Northern Whigs, many Democrats, 
and all of the Free-Soilers. These men organized 
conventions in 1854 for the first time under the 
name of the Republican party. 

The presidentiafTelection of 1856 loomed ahead. 
By extraordinary efforts Douglas had partially 
overcome the opposition to his policy in Illinois. 
In the fall of 1854 his party elected one state 
officer, the only Democratic candidate for a state 
office elected that year in any Northern state. But 
in 1855 the Illinois Legislature chose, as his col- 
league in the United States Senate, Lyman Trum- 
bull, an Anti-Nebraska Democrat. Trumbull's 
chief rival was a Whig, Abraham Lincoln, by this 
time widely known in his state as a lawyer, a politi- 
cal leader, and a campaign orator of great effective- 
ness in direct and homely methods of presenting 
truth. But the center of the national drama was now 
Kansas, where Freedom and Slavery were grap- 
pling in actual warfare for the control of the ter- 



xxviii INTRODUCTION 

ritory. Nebraska by common consent was a free 
territory, but desperate efforts were making to win 
its southern neighbor for slavery. Immigration 
bureaus, North and South, were sending colonists 
thither. The pro-slavery immigrants formed a 
legislature first, and sanctioned slavery. The Free- 
Soil men, in a numerical majority, ignored the pro- 
ceeding, chose Topeka as their capital, and, after 
framing a constitution which excluded slavery, 
they applied to Congress for admission as a state. 
In December, 1855, two rival governments existed 
in the territory, and brawls and bloodshed were of 
frequent occurrence. President Pierce favored the 
pro-slavery government. Douglas, in the Senate, 
proposed that Kansas be admitted when her popu- 
lation should reach 93,420, a population sufficient to 
entitle her to one representative in Congress. 
Meanwhile matters grew worse and a state of civil 
war prevailed. Under these conditions the presi- 
dential campaign of 1856 dawned. The first 
fruits of the Kansas-Nebraska Act were ready to 
pluck. 

On June 2d, the Democratic national convention 
met at Cincinnati. The leading candidates were 
President Pierce, Douglas, and James Buchanan. 
The time was unpropitious for Douglas. Ten days 
earlier the warfare in Kansas had reached a climax 
in the sacking of Lawrence, the leading Free-Soil 
town. There was a tendency to lay the Kansas dis- 
turbance at the door of the author of the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill. In addition, the disorganized and 



INTRODUCTION xxix 

weakened state of the party made It necessary to 
conserve every strategic advantage. Buchanan 
lived in Pennsylvania, then the pivotal state. Be- 
sides this the South, though favorable to Douglas, 
preferred a weaker man in the White House, a 
servant, not a leader. On the fifteenth ballot 
Buchanan was nominated over Douglas, Pierce 
having withdrawn. The goal of his ambition, to 
attain which Douglas had paid so heavy a price, 
receded four years further into the future. 

Before the election the Administration suc- 
ceeded in restoring order in Kansas. A sobering 
concet-n for the safety of the Union succeeded the 
indignation over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The 
South stood solid for Buchanan. The National Re- 
publican party, headed by Fremont, was not entirely 
organized from its heterogeneous elements. In the 
election Buchanan received 174 electoral votes, to 
114 for Fremont, and 8 for Fillmore, who was the 
candidate of the " Know-Nothings " and the rem- 
nant of the Whigs. Buchanan won the title of 
President, but Douglas had dictated the platform 
and retained the reality of power. 

The issue of statehood for Kansas remained 
prominent, but in 1857 it was overshadowed for a 
time by a decision of the United States Supreme 
Court, upon the power of Congress over slavery in 
the territories, and the status of negroes under the 
Constitution. In the debates upon the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, Douglas in reply to a question 
whether in his opinion the people of a territory 



XKK INTRODUCTION 

could, under the Constitution of the United States, 
exclude slavery from its limits, had answered: 
" That is a question for the courts." Now the de- 
cision upon that question was forthcoming. On 
March 6, 1857, two days after Buchanan's inaugu- 
ration, an opinion was handed down, touching the 
right to freedom of a negro, Dred Scott, who, while 
a slave, had been brought by his master into Illinois, 
where slavery was illegal, and then into the Louisi- 
ana territory, north of latitude 36° 30'. With two 
important dissenting opinions the court, with Chief 
Justice Taney presiding, decided the following 
essential points : first, that negroes were not in- 
cluded in the statement of the Declaration of In- 
dependence that all men are created equal; second, 
that no negro could become a citizen of the United 
States; third, that the right to hold slaves as prop- 
erty was affirmed in the Constitution; fourth, that 
neither Congress nor any territorial legislature 
could exclude slavery from any territory. The de- 
cision had been anticipated. But it was the greatest 
victory yet won by the South. Hereafter slavery 
was free to go into the national territories as it 
pleased. Again the North was stirred to its foun- 
dations, and a readjustment of party lines w.as 
necessary. The charge that there was a conspiracy 
to nationalize slavery was renewed. It was charged 
that Buchanan and the Supreme Court were in 
collusion, and with anxious hearts the opponents 
of slavery predicted a further decision which should 
open the states to slavery, and thus accomplish the 



INTRODUCTIOM xxxi 

full design of the conspirators. To Douglas, how- 
ever, the decision was a source of confusion. 
At once he declared the decision was right and 
must be maintained. But what of " popular sover- 
eignty," the principle upon which he had built his 
statesm-anship ? If under the Constitution slaves 
were lawful property in any territory, what became 
of the doctrine that the people of a territory could 
admit slavery or not as they chose? The problem 
was serious. It remained to be fought out in the 
campaign of 1858. 

The decision had also the peculiar effect of 
making essentially the whole platform of the new 
Republican party, in its opposition to the extension 
of slavery, unconstitutional. While the position of 
the party was morally right, it was difficult to de- 
fend it in argument, when every point urged 
involved a criticism of the highest judicial tribunal 
in the land. 

Emboldened by continued successes the Southern 
leaders became more audacious and overbearing 
than they had ever been. The North was thor- 
oughly awake to the desperate character of the 
conflict. Feeling ran so high in Congress that 
personal combats were daily feared. By the Dred 
Scott decision slavery was now legalized in Kansas. 
But the problem of her statehood remained open. 
Since 1856 three out of every four immigrants had 
come from the free states. At this juncture a 
brazen conspiracy was formed to bring Kansas 
into the Union under a pro-slavery constitution. 



xxxii INTRODUCTION 

Sanctioned by the territorial legislature, a conven- 
tion met near the close of 1857 at Lecompton to 
frame a constitution for the new state. The free- 
state men, dissatisfied with the mode of its organiza- 
tion, refused to attend, and its pro-slavery members, 
after drawing up an instrument favoring slavery, 
fell in with the scheme, devised by a Southern junto 
at Washington, of submitting it to the people in 
such a way that they had no chance to vote against 
the constitution as a whole, but only *' for the Con- 
stitution with slavery " or " for the Constitution 
.without slavery." And if the "Constitution with- 
out slavery " were chosen, it was provided that 
there should be no interference with slavery wher- 
ever in the Territory it already existed. At the 
election on December 21, 1857, the free-state men 
refused to vote, and the " Constitution with 
slavery " was chosen by a vote of 6143 to 589. In 
reaction against this proceeding the free-state men 
called a special election on January 4, 1858, to vote 
simply for or against the Lecompton Constitution. 
Rut this time the pro-slavery men, deeming the 
matter already settled, refused to vote, and the poll 
showed 10,266 votes against the Constitution to 138 
for it with slavery, and 24 for it without slavery. 

Now the contest was brought before Congress. 
With the Constitution as adopted on December 21, 
1857, the Lecompton plotters formally applied for 
the admission of Kansas to the LInion. President 
Buchanan, utterly subservient, gave the influence of 
the Administration to the iniquitous scheme. 



INTRODUCTION xxxHI 

For Douglas it was a critical moment. If as 
leader of his party he lent his powerful aid to the 
plot, it meant a total and humiliating surrender to 
the pro-slavery propaganda. It meant the sacritice 
of the spirit, if not the letter of popular sovereignty, 
for the Lecompton Constitution in no sense ex- 
pressed the voice of the people. It meant the loss 
of enough of his Northern following to imperil his 
re-election to the Senate in the state campaign in 
Illinois about to begin. On the other hand if he 
opposed the measure he would sacrifice the political 
support of the South for which he had paid so 
heavily. To the surprise of the country Doug- 
las met the issue by a formal revolt from the policy 
of his party, and a refusal to support the Lecompton 
scheme. Vigorously attacking the measure, he pro- 
cured its defeat in the House of Representatives. 
A modified form of the scheme, called the English 
Bill, next proposed, offered the people of Kansas a 
large land grant if they would accept the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution with slavery, at a new election to 
be held in August of 1858. But if they refused 
thus to accept the constitution they were to be de- 
nied admission until their population reached 
93,420. Douglas opposed this bill as vigorously 
as the other, but he was unable to defeat it. The 
people of Kansas, however, at the appointed election 
refused the bribe of land, and rejected statehood as 
thus offered by a vote of five to one. 

Save for Douglas the original Lecompton plot 
would have succeeded. Among: the Southern 



xxxiv INTRODUCTION 

leaders wrath at his procedure succeeded amaze- 
ment. The Washington Union, the organ of the 
Administration, called him " traitor," " renegade," 
" deserter." " I have very little doubt," wrote a 
journalist at Washington, " that if compelled to 
choose between Douglas and Seward for Presi- 
dent, the whole band of pro-slavery fire-eaters, with 
Toombs at their head, would vote for the latter." 
But among the Northern leaders amazement gave 
way to perplexity. The Liberator, the organ of the 
New England Abolitionists, began to commend 
Douglas. The Republicans viewed him with 
curious speculation. He was now fighting their 
battle. He had broken from his own party. Could 
he be planning to join them, place himself at their 
head, and with them fight the growing power of 
slavery? It was a profoundly interesting possi- 
bility. It appealed to many prominent Republicans, 
like Horace Greeley and Anson G. Burlingame, 
who began to manifest unwonted friendliness. But 
Douglas, whatever dreams he may for a time have 
had, had fought the Lecompton conspiracy because 
it was a dishonorable betrayal of popular sov- 
ereignty. That principle, in spite of the Dred 
Scott decision, he still maintained as affording the 
best solution of the slavery problem. He did not 
care, any more than in 1854, " whether slavery were 
voted down or voted up." Though he was now 
thwarting the advance of the slave power, he could 
not become a Republican. The Northern wing of 
his party comprehended his attitude and endorsed 



INTRODUCTION xxxv 

his policy. Nevertheless, this uncertainty about his 
position, the ghttering possibihty of his conversion 
to the RepubHcan party, was a factor of vital im- 
portance in adjusting the delicate political balance 
in the campaign of 1858. 

When Douglas returned to Illinois to enter upon 
the contest for re-election to the Senate, the out- 
look in the state indicated a severe campaign. 
There was a powerful and growing anti-slavery 
party, though it was composed of heterogeneous 
elements that had been, not without difficulty, fused 
into agreement upon a specific policy. There was 
also a body of Buchanan Democrats who voiced 
the bitter antagonism of the Washington Adminis- 
tration against the destroyer of the Lecompton plot. 
On the other hand Douglas was now in enthusiastic 
favor with the mass of his party in Illinois, who sus- 
tained him in his revolt and applauded his con- 
tinued maintenance of " popular sovereignty " and 
the Dred Scott decision, in the faith that the two 
were not irreconcilable. Besides this body of sup- 
port, many national leaders of the Republican party 
openly advocated his return to the Senate, and out 
of admiration or gratitude for what he had done 
and hope for what he might become, deprecated 
opposition to him on the part of the Republicans of 
Illinois. 

In this peculiar state of affairs the Republican 
state convention, on June 16, at Springfield, under 
circumstances of great enthusiasm tendered a 
unanimous nomination for the senatorial vacancy to 



xxxvi IN TROD UC TION 

Abraham Lincoln. On the evening of that day^ 
Mr. Lincohi opened the campaign with the speech 
which begins the series in this vokmie. 

The candidate thus honored, one whose fame was 
only just beginning to creep beyond the confines of 
his state, was a man of lowly origin and of singu- 
lar power. Educated in the constant companion- 
ship of the Bible, Shakespeare, and Euclid, he had 
no better opportunities for social or further mental 
culture than what came to him as a local surveyor 
or as a clerk in a country grocery. Grotesque in 
appearance, he was in character strangely com- 
pounded. Ele was lanky in body, abnormally tall, 
awkward in movement, physically indolent, and 
attired habitually in ill-fitting garments. In his 
mentality he conjoined the coarse thought and 
speech of the frontier tavern with absolute purity 
of personal morals, and inflexible honesty. In him 
dwelt also the extremes of melancholy and humor; 
the one bringing him in desperate wrestling at 
times to the verge of madness, the other leading 
him by beneficent reaction even to the length of 
buffoonery. He possessed a profoundly intuitive 

ijune i6 is given as the date of this speech by Nicolay 
and Hay in their history; by J. F. Rhodes (History of 
U. S., Vol. ii. p. 314); by J. T. Morse, in his life of 
Lincoln in the American Statesmen series ; by Douglas him- 
self in the Alton debate, and by other authorities. June 
17 is given as the date in the edition of the speeches of 
1858, revised by Lincoln for the campaign of i860. Hern- 
don, in his life of Lincoln, is not clear upon the matter, 
but seems also to indicate the latter date. 



INTRODUCTION xxxvii 

ancf sympathetic comprehension of the plain peo- 
ple, and through moral and philosophic insight 
perhaps more than any other man he knew and re- 
vered the Truth for its own sake. To these traits 
were added great power of concentration and an 
intense personal ambition. 

Admitted to the bar as soon as his opportunities 
permitted, he came to be considered the best jury 
lawyer in Illinois; but in distinction from Douglas 
he was deemed a poor advocate in a bad cause. As 
a lawyer he was keen in analysis, and eminently 
fair in his statement of a case ; so that his opponents 
could take no exception to his presentation of their 
position. Quaint parables and illustrations, and an 
inexhaustible fund of wit and humorous stories g2i\v. 
a strong popular appeal to logical argument that, 
was habitually sound in its process. 

His transition to political life was gradual, but 
natural. From 1834 to 1837 he served in the state 
legislature, and made at that time a public asser- 
tion that slavery was '* founded on injustice and 
bad policy." In 1846 he began his service of a 
single term in Congress, and during the two years 
voted for the Wilmot Proviso forty-two times. 
The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 
recalled Lincoln from the practice of law to which 
he had returned at the end of his term in Congress, 
and he began to deliver speeches in opposition to 
Douglas, who quickly recognized in him an unusual 
opponent. In 1855 Lincoln was a strong Anti-Ne- 
braska candidate for United States Senator, but 



xxxviii INTRODUCTION 

under circumstances of rare magnanimity threw his 
support to Judge Lyman Trumbull, whose election 
was thereby assured. By 1856 his leadership of 
the new Republican Party in his state was assured, 
and he even received considerable support for the 
presidential nomination. 

Such was the man, strangely in contrast with 
Douglas, who was now his opponent in the critical 
campaign about to begin. Douglas did not under- 
rate his antagonist. *' I shall have my hands full," 
he said. " He is the strong man of his party — full 
of wit, facts, dates — and the best stump speaker, 
with his droll ways and dry jokes, in the West. He 
is as honest as he is shrewd ; and if I beat him my 
victory will be hardly won." 

Conditions at the beginning of the campaign fa- 
vored Douglas. His incomparable prestige as the 
foremost American statesman made a handicap 
against which Lincoln struggled without success. 
As an attempt to offset the prestige of Douglas, 
Lincoln determined upon the bold plan of meeting 
him face to face in a series of joint debates. After 
some hesitation Douglas accepted the challenge, and 
seven meetings were agreed upon. The places set- 
tled upon for the debates were, in order: Ottawa 
and Freeport, in the Republican strongholds of 
Northern Illinois ; Charleston, Galesburg, and 
Quincy, localities in Central Illinois, where the two 
parties were nearly of equal strength ; and Jonesboro 
and Alton, in the strongly Democratic region of 
southern Illinois. The conditions of the first debate 



INTRODUCTION xxxix 

at Ottawa were that Douglas should open with a 
speech of an hour, with Lincoln to reply for an hour 
and a half, and Douglas to close with a rejoinder 
of thirty minutes. In the remaining debates the 
conditions were the same, except that the speakers 
alternated in the privilege of opening and closing. 

The resulting forensic struggle is comparable 
but to one other in American history — that between 
Webster and Hayne. The two men presented a 
picturesque contrast as they faced one another: — 
Lincoln, with yellow, wrinkled face, and lean, un- 
gainly figure, much over six feet in height ; Doug- 
las, with massy figure, wonderful leonine head, 
black flowing hair, swarthy complexion, brilliant, 
dark, magnetic eyes, yet with less than five feet of 
stature. As speakers they were not less in striking 
contrast. " The Democratic spokesnian," writes 
Mr. Henry Villard in his Memoirs,^ " commanded 
a strong, sonorous voice, a rapid, vigorous utter- 
ance, a telling play of countenance, impressive ges- 
tures, and all the other art of the practiced speaker. 
As far as external conditions were concerned, there 
was nothing in favor of Lincoln. He had an . . . 
indescribably gawky figure, an odd-featured, inex- 
pressive, and altogether uncomely face. He used 
singularly awkward, almost absurd, up-and-down 
and sidewise movements of his body to give em 
phasis to his arguments. His voice was naturally 
good, but he frequently raised it to an unnatural 
pitch." Yet as he became moved by the fervor of 
1 Vol. i., pp. 92-3. 



xl INTRODUCTION 

speaking, much of his harsh, awkward manner gave 
place to a sort of natural freedom and dignity, and 
even grace, his face became mobile and expressive, 
and his voice, too, softened and became flexible and 
melodious. 

In their methods of debate they were equally un- 
like. '' In the whole field of American politics," ^ 
say Nicolay and Hay, " no man has equaled Douglas 
in the expedients and strategy of debate. Lacking 
originality and constructive logic, he had great 
facility in appropriating by ingenious restatement 
the thoughts and formulas of others. He was tire- 
less, ubiquitous, miseizable. It would have been as 
easy to hold a globule of mercury under the finger's 
tip as to fasten him to a point he wished to evade. 
He could almost invert a proposition by a plausible 
paraphrase. He delighted in enlarging an op- 
ponent's proposition to a forced inference, ridicu- 
lous in form and monstrous in dimensions. In 
spirit he was alert, combative, aggressive ; in man- 
ner patronizing and aggressive by turns. 

" Lincoln's mental equipment was of an entirely 
different order. His principal weapon was direct 
unswerving logic. His fairness of statement and 
generosity of admission had long been proverbial. 
For these intellectual duels with Douglas he pos- 
sessed a power of analysis that easily outran and 
circumvented the * Little Giant's ' most extraordi- 
nary gymnastics of argument. But disdaining 
mere quibbles, he pursued lines of concise reason- 

1 Abraham Lincoln : A History. Vol. ii. p. 147. 



INTRODUCTION xli 

ing to maxims of constitutional law and political 
morals. Douglas was also forcible in statement and 
bold in assertion ; Lincoln was his superior in quaint 
originality, aptness of phrase and subtlety of defini- 
tion ; and oftentimes Lincoln's philosophic vision 
and poetical fervor raised him to flights of eloquence 
which were not possible to the fiber and temper of 
his opponent." 

To be victorious in the campaign Lincoln had 
need to win the radical Abolition vote, the moderate 
Republicans, and the conservative old-line Whigs 
for whose support Douglas also strove, and the 
Americans or " Know-nothings." The split be- 
tween the Buchanan and the Douglas Democrats 
favored him ; but on his own part he had to contend 
against the lukewarm or hostile attitude of in- 
fluential Republicans outside of Illinois. 

The interest in the series of forensic encounters 
rapidly grew. Vast audiences assembled from far 
and near; coming by train, journeying in slow 
wagons over the dusty prairie roads even from ad- 
joining states to hear the rival leaders, mounted in 
the open air upon elevated platforms of rough-hewn 
timbers, wrestle with each other's convictions of 
policy and of duty. Newspapers throughout the 
country published the speeches entire, and the at- 
tention of the national public, drawn at first by Lin- 
coln's unexpected survival of the earlier debates, 
became fixed with unprecedented interest upon the 
unfolding drama of a local contest. 

Personally, Lincoln and Douglas were friends. 



xlii INTRODUCTION 

The intention of each was plainly to conduct the de- 
bates upon a plane of courtesy and good-feeling. 
Douglas was characteristically brimful of good 
nature. He had called his opponent, maybe with 
a patronizing accent, a " kind, amiable, and in- 
telligent gentleman, a good citizen and an honor- 
able opponent." Lincoln quizzically replied to the 
compliments, declaring at Ottawa that he in 
respect of praise was like the Hoosier with his 
gingerbread : " He reckoned he liked it better than 
any other man, and got less of it." And yet once 
when Douglas spoke of Lincoln with too much as- 
sumption of superiority ; and again, when he reiter- 
ated without respectable evidence that Lincoln and 
Trumbull had conspired, in 1855, to join the Whigs 
and Anti-Nebraska Democrats into a new party, 
and capture for themselves the spoils ; the amenities 
of debate were sorely strained, and either candidate 
gave way to acrimonious comment. Even sharper 
interchanges were drawn forth when Lincoln 
charged that Douglas was a leading member of a 
formidable conspiracy to nationalize slavery ; and 
particularly when Lincoln asserted with evidence 
that certain strongly Abolition resolutions persist- 
ently employed by Douglas as if Lincoln were re- 
sponsible for the doctrines which they contained, 
were essentially forgeries and known by Douglas 
to be such. Besides these personalities, one serious 
charge was continually reiterated by Douglas : that 
Lincoln shifted his ground, as he passed from one 
section of the state to another, that he made his 



INTRODUCTION xliii 

principles suit the political complexion of his 
audience.^ 

Besides personal questions, there were ques- 
tions' having their origin in the search for political 
advantage. Douglas's aim was to separate the 
Whigs from Lincoln's following. To this end he 
propounded seven questions to Lincoln at Ottawa, 
with a view of showing that Lincoln agreed with 
the Abolitionists in their entire policy regarding the 
great questions of 1850 and 1854. Lincoln answered 
the questions at Freeport, and avoided falling into 
the trap; and he at once put four questions to 
Douglas, and later a fifth, concerning certain phases 
of his slavery policy; one of them of so much sig- 
nificance that Douglas's answer destroyed his pres- 
idential prospects in i860. 

But far above questions of personalities, and ques- 
tions of politics, loomed the larger questions of 
political and moral principle. Did Lincoln at 
Springfield incite to sectionalism and revolution? 
Yes, and further urged interference, declared Doug- 
las, with the sacred right of people to determine 
their domestic institutions for themselves. Not so, 
replied Lincoln ; the Republican party seeks only to 
prevent the extension of slavery and to place it 
where it will disappear of itself. Why cannot the 
Union continue half slave and half free as our 

1 For more detailed description of the debates, and for 
explanation and discussion of the issues of the campaign, 
see the supplementary notes. The Introduction nTerely 
states the issues and correlates them. 



xliv INTRODUCTION 

fathers made it? rejoined Douglas; and what speci-'' 
fie plan have you for the extinction of this economic 
institution? Then came the great questions of the 
place of the negro in the Declaration of Indepen-' 
dence, and of the constitutionality of slavery. Here^ 
Lincoln was hampered by the Dred Scott decision, 
against which he protested in the name of truth and 
justice, though it was the verdict of the highest 
judicial tribunal. Douglas declared that Lincoln 
was not only seeking to divide the nation, and to 
undermine our highest constitutional authority, but 
was seeking to make the negro the social and the 
political equal of the white man. In rising at length 
above questions of state and constitution to view- 
slavery in the light of moral law — of absolute right 
and wrong — Lincoln placed the argument on a plane 
where Douglas could not follow him; but Lincoln 
was no longer responding merely to the arguments 
of a personal opponent, he had become the voice of 
the aroused conscience of a nation. ^ " That is the 
real issue," he said at Alton. " That is the issue 
which will continue in this country when these poor 
tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be 
silent. It is the eternal struggle between these 
two principles — right and wrong — throughout the 
world." 

1 " I asked him one day," says Mr. Horace White, " why 
he did not oftener turn the laugh on Douglas. He replied 
that he was too much in earnest, and that is was doubtful 
whether turning the laugh on anybody really gained any 
votes." — Herndon's Life of Lincoln, iL loi. 



INTRODUCTION xlv 

After a desperately severe campaign in which 
Douglas delivered a total of 130 speeches, and ex- 
pended $80,000 for campaign expenses, as against 
$1000 by Lincoln, the election revealed an ex- 
ceedingly close result. In the popular vote Lincoln 
received in the state 126,084 ballots, Douglas 
121,940, and the Buchanan Democrat, 5,091. But 
an unfair apportionment brought it about that the 
legislature contained a majority of eight for Doug- 
las. Lincoln was bitterly disappointed. To a friend 
he said that he felt " like the boy that stumped his 
toe, — ' it hurt too much to laugh, and he was too l^ig 
to cry.' " 

Viewed from the present day, Douglas's victory 
was a remarkable one. His task had been her- 
culean. " There is, on the whole," says Mr. I. 
N. Arnold,^ " hardly any greater triumph in the 
history of American politics than his re-election." 
He had won support from the friends and the ene- 
mies of slavery alike. But of Lincoln himself Douglas 
said : 2 "I have been in Congress sixteen years, and 
there is not a man whom I would not rather meet in 
debate." And the nation recognized in him the com- 
ing of a new leader. For though defeated, Lincoln 
had organized his own party, and rendered inevitable 
the fatal division of that of his opponent ; had won a 
moral victory ; had, in speeches which rank among 
the masterpieces of oratory in all time, determined 
the ultimate form of the slavery issue, and com- 

1 Life of Lincoln, p. 149. 

2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, ii. 577. 



xlvi INTRODUCTION 

posed the essential gospel of the anti-slavery move- 
ment. Before him the pathway lay clear to the 
stern and sad realization of his high ambition. 

Bibliographical Note. — The best accounts of the 
debates are contained in general histories of the period 
and in biographies of the participants. Some of the 
most available are: J. F. Rhodes' History of the United 
States, Vol. ii. ; J. G. Blaine's Twenty Years of Con- 
gress; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln: A History; 
The Life of Lincoln by Herndon and Weik, (Ed. 1892) 
containing the description by Horace White; L N. 
Arnold's Life of Lincoln; J. T. Morse's Abraham Lin- 
coln; J. G. Holland's Life of Lincoln; W. Lamon's Life of 
Lincoln. Of extended biographies of Douglas there are 
only those by J. W. Sheehan, Flint, and Forney, all of them 
partisan and none of them now readily accessible; but an 
excellent sketch and analysis of his career is easily 
available in William Garrott Brown's Stephen A. Doug- 
las (Riverside Biographical Series). Special articles con- 
cerning Douglas occur in the North American Review, 
Vol. ciii, and the Atlantic Monthly, Vol. viii, and Har- 
per's Monthly, Vol. Ixxxvii. 



THE LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS 
DEBATES 



LINCOLN-DOUGLAS 
DEBATES 

Xlncoln's SpcingficlD Speecb 

Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln, delivered at Spring- 
field, 111., June i6, 1858s at the close of the Republican S 
State Convention, by which Mr. Lincoln had been named 
as candidate for United States Senator. 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the 
Convention : If we could first know where we are, 
and whither we are tending, we could better judge 10 
what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into 
the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the 
avowed object and confident promise of putting an 
end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of 
that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, ^5 
but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it 
will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached 
and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot 
stand." I believe this government cannot endure 
permanently half slave and half free. I do not 20 
expect the Union to be dissolved ; I do not expect 
the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing, or all the 
other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest 
the further spread of it, and place it where the pub- 25 
lie mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course 



2 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 

of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it 
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the 
States, old as well as new. North as well as South. 
Have we no tendency to the latter condition? 

5 Let anyone who doubts, carefully contemplate 
that now almost complete legal combination — piece 
of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the 
Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. 
Let him consider, not only what work the machinery 

lo is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let 
him study the history of its construction, and 
trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace 
the evidences of design, and concert of action, 
among its chief architects, from the beginning. 

15 The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded 
from more than half the States by State Constitu- 
tions, and from most of the National territory by 
Congressional prohibition. Four days later, com- 
menced the struggle which ended in repealing that 

20 Congressional prohibition. This opened all the 
National territory to slavery, and was the first point 
gained. 

But, so far. Congress only had acted, and an 
indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was 

25 indispensable to save the point already gained, and 
give chance for more. 

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had 
been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable 
argument of " squatter sovereignty,'* otherwise 

30 called " sacred right of self-government," which lat- 
ter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful 



LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 3 

basis of any government, was so perverted in this 
attempted use of it as to amount to just this : That 
if any one man choose to enslave another, no third 
man shall be allowed to object. That argument was 
incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the 5 
language which follows : " It being the true intent 
and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into 
any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, 
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 10 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States." Then opened the roar of loose declamation 
in favor of " squatter sovereignty," and " sacred 
right of self-government." " But," said opposition 
members, " let us amend the bill so as to expressly 15 
declare that the people of the Territory may exclude 
slavery." " Not we," said the friends of the meas- 
ure ; and down they voted the amendment. 

While the Nebraska bill was passing through 
Congress, a law case, involving the question of a 20 
negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having vol- 
untarily taken him first into a free State, and then 
into a territory covered by the Congressional pro- 
hibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in 
each, was passing through the United States Circuit 25 
Court for the District of Missouri ; and both 
Nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision 
in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name 
was ''Dred Scott," which name now designates the 
decision finally made in the case. Before the then 30 
next Presidential election, the law case came to, and 



4 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 

was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United 
States ; but the decision of it was deferred until 
after the election. Still, before the election. Senator 
Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the 

5 leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his 
opinion whether the people of a Territory can con- 
stitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and 
the latter answers : " That is a question for the 
Supreme Court." 

lo The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, 
and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That 
was the second point gained. The indorsement, 
however, fell short of a clear popular majority by 
nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, per- 

15 haps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satis- 
factory. The outgoing President, in his last annual 
message, as impressively as possible echoed back 
upon the people the weight and authority of the 
indorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did 

20 not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argu- 
ment. The Presidential inauguration came, and 
still no decision of the court; but the incoming 
President, in his inaugural address, fervently 
exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming. 

25 decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few 
days, came the decision. 

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an 
early occasion to make a speech at this capital in- 
dorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently 

30 denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, 
too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to 



LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 5 

indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to 
express his astonishment that any different view 
had ever been entertained ! 

At length a squabble springs up between the Presi- 
dent and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the 5 
mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Con- 
stitution was or was not in any just sense made by 
the people of Kansas ; and in that quarrel the latter 
declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, 
and that he cares not whether slavery be voted dozen 10 
or voted up. I do not understand his declaration, 
that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or 
up, to be intended by him other than as an apt 
definition of the policy he would impress upon the 
public mind — the principle for which he declares 15 
he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to 
the end. And well may he cling to that principle ! 
If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to 
it. That principle is the only shred left of his 
original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott 20 
decision " squatter sovereignty " squatted out of 
existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding ; 
like the mould at the foundry, served through one 
blast, and fell back into loose sand ; helped to carry 
an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His 25 
late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the 
Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the 
original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was 
made on a point — the right of a people to make their 
own constitution — upon which he and the Repub- 30 
licans have never differed. 



6 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFILLD SPEECH 

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in 
connection with Senator Douglas's " care not " 
policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its 
present state of advancement. This was the third 
5 point gained. The working points of that 
machinery are: — 

First, That no negro slave, imported as such 
from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can 
ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that 

lo term as used in the Constitution of the United 
States. This point is made in order to deprive the 
negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that 
provision of the United States Constitution which 
declares that '' The citizens of each State shall be 

15 entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens 
in the several States." 

Secondly, That, " subject to the Constitution of 
the United States," neither Congress nor a Terri- 
torial Legislature can exclude slavery from any 

20 United States Territory. This point is made in 
order that individual men may fill up the Territories 
with slaves, without danger of losing them as prop- 
erty, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency 
to the institution through all the future. 

25 Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in 
actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as 
against the holder, the United States courts will not 
decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of 
any slave State, the negro may be forced into by the 

30 master. This point is made, not to be pressed imme- 
diately ; but, if acquiesced in for av/hile, and appa- 



LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH' 7 

rently indorsed by the people at an election, then to 
sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's 
master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free 
State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully 
do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in 5 
Illinois, or in any other free State. 

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand 
with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, 
is to educate and mould public opinion, at least 
Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery ^<^ 
is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly 
where we now are; and partially, also, whither we 
are tending. 

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go 
back and run the mind over the string of historical 15 
facts already stated. Several things will now appear 
less dark and mysterious than they did when they 
were transpiring. The people were to be left " per- 
fectly free," *' subject only to the Constitution." 
What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders 20 
could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was 
an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision 
to afterward come in, and declare the perfect 
freedom of the people to be just no freedom 
at all. Why was the amendment, expressly de- 25 
daring the right of the people, voted down? 
Plainly enough now, — the adoption of it would have 
spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why 
was the court decision held up? Why even a Sen- 
ator's individual opinion withheld, till after the 
Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the 3<^ 



8 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 

speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly 
free argument upon which the election was to be 
carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation 
on the indorsement? Why the delay of a re-argu- 
5 ment? Why the incoming President's advance 
exhortation in favor of the decision ? These things 
look like the cautious patting and petting of a 
spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it 
is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And 

lo why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by 
the President and others? 

We cannot absolutely know that all these adapta- 
tions are the result of preconcert. But when we 
see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of 

15 which we know have been gotten out at different 
times and places and by different workmen, 
— Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for 
instance — and when we see these timbers joined 
together, and see they exactly make the frame of a 

20 house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly 
fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the 
different pieces exactly adapted to their respective 
places, and not a piece too many or too few, — not 
omitting even scaffolding, — or, if a single piece be 

25 lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted 
and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such 
a case, we find it impossible not to believe that 
Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all 
understood one another from the beginning, and 

30 all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up 
before the first blow was struck. 



LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 9 

It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska 
bill the people of a State as well as Territory were 
to be left '' perfectly free," " subject only to the Con- 
stitution." Why mention a State? They were 
legislating for Territories, and not for or about .1 
States. Certainly the people of a State are and 
ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United 
States ; but why is mention of this lugged into this 
merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a 
Territory and the people of a State therein lumped lo 
together, and their relation to the Constitution 
therein treated as being precisely the same? While 
the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in 
the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of 
all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the 15 
Constitution of the United States neither permits 
Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude 
slavery from any United States Territory, they all 
omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution 
permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude 20 
it. Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can 
be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get 
into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in 
the people of a State to exclude slavery from their 
limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such 25 
declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, 
into the Nebraska bill, — I ask, who can be quite sure 
that it would not have been voted down in the one 
case as it had been in the other? The nearest 
approach to the point of declaring the power of a 3<^ 
State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He 



10 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 

approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, 
and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska Act. 
On one occasion, his exact language is, *' Except in 
cases where the power is restrained by the Constitu- 

5 tion of the United States, the law of the State is 
supreme over the subject of slavery within its juris- 
diction." In what cases the power of the States is so 
restrained by the United States Constitution, is left 
an open question, precisely as the same question, as 

lo to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was 
left open in the Nebraska Act. Put this and that 
together, and we have another nice little niche, 
which we may, ere long, see filled with another 
Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitu- 

15 tion of the United States does not permit a State to 
exclude slavery from its limits. And this may 
especially be expected if the doctrine of " care not 
whether slavery be voted down or voted up " shall 
gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give prom- 

20 ise that such a decision can be maintained when 
made. 

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of 
being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome or 
unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and 

^5 will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present 
political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We 
shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of 
Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, 
and we shall awake to the reality instead that the 

30 Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To 
meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the 



LINCOLN'S SPRlNGblELD SPEECH il 

work now before all those who would prevent that 
consummation. That is what we have to do. How 
can we best do it? 

There arc those who denounce us openly to their 
own friends, and yet whisper us softly that Senator 5 
Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which 
to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, 
from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with 
the present head of the dynasty, and that he has reg- 
ularly voted with us on a single point, upon which lo 
he and we have never differed. They remind us 
that he is a great man, and that the largest of us 
are very small ones. Let this be granted. But " a 
living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge 
Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work is at least 15 
a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the 
advances of slavery ? He don't care anything about 
it. His avowed mission is impressing the " public 
heart " to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas 
Democratic newspaper thinks that Douglas's 20 
superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of 
the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an 
effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has 
not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, 
how can he resist it? For years he has labored to 25 
prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro 
slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly 
show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where 
they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably 
they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in V'ir- 3° 
ginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the 



12 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 

whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of 
property ; and, as such, how can he oppose the for- 
eign slave trade, — how can he refuse that trade in 
that " property " shall be " perfectly free," — unless 

5 he does it as a protection to the home production? 
And as the home producers will probably not ask 
the protection, he will be wholly without a ground 
of opposition. 

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may 

lo rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday ; 
that he may rightfully change when he finds himself 
wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and 
infer that he will make any particular change, of 
which he himself has given no intimation? Can we 

15 safely base our action upon any such vague infer- 
ence? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent 
Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or 
do aught that can be personally offensive to him. 
•Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on 

20 principle so that our cause may have assistance from 
his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adven- 
titious obstacle. But clearly he is not now with us ; 
he does not pretend to be, — he does not promise 
ever to be. 

25 Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and con- 
ducted by, its own undoubted friends, — those whose 
hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who 
do care for the result. Two years ago the Repub- 
licans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred 

30 thousand strong. We did this under the single 
impulse of resistance to a common danger, with 



LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 13 

every external circumstance against us. Of strange, 
discordant, and even hostile elements we gathered 
from the four winds, and formed and fought the 
battle through, under the constant hot fire of a 
disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we 
brave all then, to falter now, — now, when that same 
enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? 
The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail ; if we 
stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may 
accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, 
the victory is sure to come. 



ScconD 5o(nt Debate, at fvecpoxt 

[August 27, 1858] 

MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 

Ladies and Gentlemen : On Saturday last, 
5 Judge Douglas and myself first met in public dis- 
cussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, 
and he replied for half an hour. The order is now 
reversed. I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a 
half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I pro- 

^^ pose to devote myself during the first hour to the 
scope of what was brought within the range of his 
half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was 
brought within the scope in that half-hour's speech 
something of his own opening speech. In the 

^5 course of that opening argument Judge Douglas 
proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In 
my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some 
other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I 
thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. 

20 I then distinctly intimated to him that I would 
answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition 
only that he should agree to answer as many for me. 
He made no intimation at the time of the proposi- 
tion, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that sug- 

25 gestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying 

14. 



MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH IS 

that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing 
with me as though I had refused to answer his inter- 
rogatories. I now propose that I will answ^er any 
of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will 
answer questions from me not exceeding the same 5 
number. I give him an opportunity to respond. 
The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will 
answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine 
or not; and that after I have done so, I shall pro- 
pound mine to him. ^^ 

I have supposed myself, since the organization of 
the Republican party at Bloommgton, in May, 1856, 
bound as a party man by the platforms of the party, 
then and since. If in any interrogatories which I 
shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is 15 
within these platforms, it will be perceived that no 
one is responsible but myself. 

Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's 
interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago 
" Times," and answer them seriatim. In order that 20 
there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the 
interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to 
them. The first one of these interrogatories is in 
these words: — 

Question i. — " I desire to know whether Lihcoln 25 
to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the 
unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law ? " 

Anszver. — I do not now, nor ever did, stand in 
favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive 
Slave law. ^^ 

Q. 2. " I desire him to answer whether he stands 



i6 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admis- 
sion of any more Slave States into the Union, even 
if the people want them ? " 

A. I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged 

5 against the admission of any more Slave States into 

the Union. .^ 

Q. 3. " I want to know whether he stands 
pledged against the admission of a new State into 
the Union with such a Constitution as the people of 
1° that State may see fit to make ?" 

A. I do not stand pledged against the admission 
of a new State into the Union, with such a Con- 
stitution as the people of that State may see fit to 
make. 
15 Q. 4. " I want to know whether he stands 
to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia ? " 

A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the aboli- 
tion of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
^^ Q- 5- *' I desire him to answer whether he stand? 
pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between 
the different States? " 

A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of 
the slave-trade between the different States. 
25 Q. 6. '* I desire to know whether he stands 
pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories 
of the United States, north as well as south of the 
Missouri Compromise line? " 

A, I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a 
30 belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit 
slavery in all the United States Territories. 



MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 17 

Q. 7. " I desire him to answer whether he is 
opposed to the acquisition of any new territory un- 
less slavery is first prohibited therein ? " 

A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisi- 
tion of territory ; and, in any given case, I would or 5 
would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as 
I might think such acquisition would or would not 
aggravate the slavery question among ourselves. 

Now, my friends, it will be perceived, upon an 
examination of these questions and answers, that so 10 
far I have only answered that I was not pledged to 
this, that, or the other. The Judge has not framed 
his interrogatories to ask me anything more than 
this, and I have answered in strict accordance with 
the interrogatories, and have answered truly, that 15 
I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to ^ 
which I have answered. But I am not disposed to 
hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I 
am rather disposed to take up at least some of these 
questions, and state what I really think upon them, 20 

As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive 
Slave law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not 
now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, the people of the Southern 
States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive 25 
Slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to 
say in regard to the existing Fugitive Slave law, 
further than that I think it should have been framed 
so as to be free from some of the objections that 
pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And 30 
inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in re- 



i8 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

gard to an alteration or modification of that law, I 
would not be the man to introduce it as a new sub- 
ject of agitation upon the general question of 
slavery. 
5 In regard to the other question, of whether I am 
pledged to the admission of any more Slave States 
into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I 
would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a posi- 
tion of having to pass upon that question. I should be 

lo exceedingly glad to know that there would never be 
another Slave State admitted into the Union; but I 
must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Ter- 
ritories during the territorial existence of any one 
given Territory, and then the people shall, having 

15 a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to 
adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary 
thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced 
by the actual presence of the institution among them, 
I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to . 

20 admit them into the Union. ^./f 

The third interrogatory is answered by the an- 
swer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same 
as the second. 

The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of 

25 slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to 
that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I 
should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished 
in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress 
possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. 

30 Yet as a member of Congress, I should not, with 
my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to 



MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 19 

abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless 
it would be upon these conditions: First, that the 
abolition should be gradual; second, that it should 
be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in 
the District ; and third, that compensation should be 5 
made to unwilling owners. With these three condi- 
tions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see 
Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, 
and, in the language of Henry Clay, " sweep from 
our capital that foul blot upon our nation." ^^ 

In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say 
here, that as to the question of the abolition of the 
slave-trade between the dififerent States, I can truly 
answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing 
about it. It is a subject to which I have not given 15 
that mature consideration that would make me feel 
authorized to state a position so as to hold myself en- 
tirely bound by it. In other words, that question 
has never been prominently enough before me to 
induce me to investigate whether we really have the 20 
constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it if 
I had sufficient time to bring myself to a conclusion 
upon that subject ; but I have not done so, and I say 
so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglas. I 
must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that 25 
Congress does possess the constitutional power to 
abolish the slave-trade among the different States, 
I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that 
power, unless upon some conservative principle as I 
conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to 30 
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 



20 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

My answer as to whether I desire that slavery 
should be prohibited in all the Territories of the 
United States, is full and explicit within itself, and 
cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. 

5 So I suppose in regard to the question whether I 
am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory 
unless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer 
is such that I could add nothing by way of illustra- 
tion, or making myself better understood, than the 

lo answer which I have placed in writing. 

Now in all this the Judge has me, and he has me 
on the record. I suppose he had flattered himselfi 
that I was really entertaining one set of opinions 
for one place, and another set for another place; 

15 that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered 
at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say 
to a vast audience as strongly tending to Abolition- 
ism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I 
believe I am saying that which, if it would be offen- 

20 sive to any persons and render them enemies to my-; 

self, would be offensive to persons in this audience. 

I now proceed to propound to the Judge the inter-i 

rogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will 

bring forward a new instalment when I get them 

*5 ready. I will bring them forward now, only reach- 
ing to number four. ^^'"'^ 
The first one is : — 

Question i. If the people of Kansas shall, by 
means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, 

30 adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into 
the Union under it, before they have the requisit/^ 



MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 21 

; number of inhabitants according to the English bill, 
— some ninety-three thousand, — will you vote to 
admit them ? 

Q, 2. Can the people of a United States Terri- 
tory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any 5 
citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from 
its limits prior to the formation of a State consti- 

1 tution ? 

i Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States 

I shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from 10 
their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, 
adopting, and following such decision as a rule of 
political action ? ^^ 

Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional 
territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may 15 
affect the nation on the slavery question ? 

As introductory to these interrogatories which 
Judge Douglas propounded to me at Ottawa, he read 
a set of resolutions which he said Judge Trumbull 
and myself had participated in adopting, in the first 20 
Republican State Convention, held at Springfield 
in October, 1854. He insisted that I and Judge 
Trumbull, and perhaps the entire Republican party, 
were responsible for the doctrines contained in the 

' set of resolutions which he read, and I understand 25 
that it was from that set of resolutions that he de- 
duced the interrogatories which he propounded to 
me, using these resolutions as a sort of authority for 
propounding those questions to me. Now, I say here 
to-day that I do not answer his interrogatories be- 30 

: cause of their springing at all from that set of resolu- 



22 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

tions which he read. I answered them because Judge 
Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor 
ever did, recognize any responsibility upon myself 
in that set of resolutions. When I replied to him on 
5 that occasion, I assured him that I never had any- 
thing to do with them. I repeat here to-day that I 
never in any possible form had anything to do with 
that set of resolutions. It turns out, I believe, that 
those resolutions were never passed in any conven- 

^° tion held in Springfield. It turns out that they were 
never passed at any convention or any public meet- 
ing that I had any part in. I believe it turns out, in 
addition to all this, that there was not, in the fall of 
1854, any convention holding a session in Spring- 

^5 field, calling itself a Republican State Convention; 
yet it is true there was a convention, or assemblage of 
men calling themselves a convention, at Springfield, 
that did pass some resolutions, But so little did I 
really know of the proceedings of that convention, 

20 or what set of resolutions they had passed, though 
having a general knowledge that there had been an 
assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas 
read the resolutions, I really did not know but they 
had been the resolutions passed then and there. I 

^5 did not question that they were the resolutions 
adopted. For I could not bring myself to suppose 
that Judge Douglas could say what he did upon this 
subject without knowing that it was true. I con- 
tented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as I 

30 truly could, all connection with them, not denying 
or affirming whether they were passed at Springfield. 



f 



MR, LINCOLN'S SPEECH 23 

Now, It turns out that he had got hold of some reso- 
lutions passed at some convention or public meeting 
in Kane County. I wish to say here, that I don't 
conceive that in any fair and just mind this dis- 
covery relieves me at all. I had just as much to do 5 
with the convention in Kane County as that at 
Springfield. I am just as much responsible for the 
resolutions at Kane County as those at Springfield, 
— the amount of the responsibility being exactly 
nothing in either case ; no more than there would 10 
be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the 
moon. 

I allude to this extraordinary matter in this can- 
vass for some further purpose than anything yet 
advanced. Judge Douglas did not make his state- 15 
ment upon that occasion as matters that he believed 
to be true, but he stated them roundly as being true, 
in such form as to pledge his veracity for their truth. 
When the whole matter turns out as it does, and 
when we consider who Judge Douglas is, — that he 20 
is a distinguished Senator of the United States ; 
that he has served nearly twelve years as such; 
that his character is not at all limited as an ordinary 
Senator of the United States, but that his name 
has become of world-wide renown, — it is most 25 
extraordinary that he should so far forget all 
the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of pru- 
dence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of 
that which the slightest investigation would have 
shown him to be wholly false. I can only account 30 
for his having done so upon tlie supposition that 



24 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

that evil genius which has attended him through 
his Hfe, giving to him an apparent astonishing pros- 
perity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt 
there being any advantage in virtue over vice, — I 
5 say I can only account for it on the supposition that 
that evil genius has at last made up its mind to for- 
sake him. 

And I may add that another extraordinary feature 
of the Judge's conduct in this canvass — made more 

lo extraordinary by this incident — is, that he is in the 
habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charg- 
ing falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and 
others. I now ask whether he is able to find in any- 
thing that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said, 

15 or in anything that I have said, a justification at all 
compared with what we have, in this instance, for 
that sort of vulgarity. 

I have been in the habit of charging as a matter 
of belief on my part that, in the introduction of the 

20 Nebraska bill into Congress, there was a conspiracy 
to make slavery perpetual and national. I have ar- 
ranged from time to time the evidence which estab- 
lishes and proves the truth of this charge. I re- 
curred to this charge at Ottawa. I shall not now 

25 have time to dwell upon it at very great length ; but 
inasmuch as Judge Douglas, in his reply of half an 
hour, made some points upon me in relation to it, I 
propose noticing a few of them. 

The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made, 

30 hi which I very distinctly made that charge, he 
thought for a good while I was in fun ! that I was 



MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 2$ 

playful; that I was not sincere about it; and that 
he only grew angry and somewhat excited when he 
found that I insisted upon it as a matter of earnest- 
ness. He says he characterized it as a falsehood so 
far as I implicated his moral character in that trans- 5 
action. Well, I did not know, till he presented that 
view, that I had implicated his moral character. He 
is very much in the habit, when he argues me up 
into a position I never thought of occupying, of lo 
very cosily saying he has no doubt Lincoln is " con- 
scientious " in saying so. He should remember that 
I did not know but what he was altogether " con- 
scientious " in that matter. I can conceive it pos- 
sible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and I 15 
really find nothing in Judge Douglas's course or 
arguments that is contrary to or inconsistent with 
his belief of a conspiracy to nationalize and spread 
slavery as being a good and blessed thing; and so 
I hope he will understand that I do not at all ques- 20 
tion but that in all this matter he is entirely " con- 
scientious." 

But to draw your attention to one of the points 
I made in this case, beginning at the beginning. 
When the Nebraska bill was introduced, or a short 25 
time afterward, by an amendment, I believe, it was 
provided that it must be considered " the true intent 
and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into 
any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, 
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to 30 
form and regulate their own domestic institutions in 
their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 



26 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

the United States." I have called his attention to 
the fact that when he and some others began arguing 
that they were giving an increased degree of liberty 
to the people in the Territories over and above what 
5 they formerly had on the question of slavery, a 
question was raised whether the law was enacted 
to give such unconditional liberty to the people ; and 
to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, Mr. 
Chase, of Ohio, introduced an amendment, in which 

lo he made the law — if the amendment were adopted — 
expressly declare that the people of the Territory 
should have the power to exclude slavery if they 
saw fit. I have asked attention also to the fact that 
Judge Douglas and those who acted with him voted 

15 that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed 
exactly the thing they said was the true intent and 
meaning of the law. I have called attention to the 
fact that in subsequent times a decision of the Su- 
preme Court has been made, in which it has been 

20 declared that a Territorial Legislature has no con- 
stitutional right to exclude slavery. And I have 
argued and said that for men who did intend that 
the people of the Territory should have the right to 
exclude slavery absolutely and unconditionally, the 

25 voting down of Chase's amendment is wholly inex- 
plicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But I have said, 
that with men who did look forward to such a de- 
cision, or who had it in contemplation that such a 
decision of the Supreme Court would or might be 

30 made, the voting down of that amendment would be 
perfectly rational and intelligible. It would keep 



MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 27 

Congress from coming in collision with the decision 
when it was made. Anybody can conceive that if 
there was an intention or expectation that such a 
decision was to follow, it would not be a very desir- 
able party attitude to get into for the Supreme Court 5 
—all or nearly all its members belonging to the same 
party — to decide one way^ when the party in Con- 
gress had decided the other way. Hence it would 
be very rational for men expecting such a decision 
to keep the niche in that law clear for it. After 10 
pointing this out I tell Judge Douglas that it looks 
to me as though here was the reason why Chase's 
amendment was voted down. I tell him that, as he 
did it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for 
a reason different from this, he knows what that rea- 15 
son was, and can tell us what it was. I tell him, also, 
it will be vastly more satisfactory to the country for 
him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason 
why it was voted down than to stand upon his dig- 
nity and call people liars. Well, on Saturday he did 20 
make his answer; and what do you think it was? 
He says if I had only taken upon myself to tell the 
whole truth about that amendment of Chase's, no 
explanation would have been necessary on his part — 
or words to that effect. Now, I say here that I am 25 
quite unconscious of having suppressed anything 
material to the case, and I am very frank to admit 
if there is any sound reason other than that which 
appeared to me material, it is quite fair for him to 
present it. What reason does he propose? That 30 
when Chase came forward with his amendment ex- 



28 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

pressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery 
from the limits of every Territory, General Cass pro- 
posed to Chase, if he (Chase) would add to his 
amendment that the people should have the power 
5 to introduce or exclude, they would let it go. This 
is substantially all of his reply. And because Chase 
would not do that, they voted his amendment down. 
Well, it turns out, I believe, upon examination, that 
General Cass took some part in the little running 

lo debate upon that amendment, and then ran away and 
did not vote on it at all. Is not that the fact? So 
confident, as I think, was General Cass that there 
was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run away 
from the whole thing. This is an inference I draw 

15 from the fact that, though he took part in the debate, 
his name does not appear in the ayes and noes. But 
does Judge Douglas's reply amount to a satisfactory 
answer? [Cries of *' Yes," *' Yes," and "No," 
" No."] There is some little difference of opinion 

20 here. But I ask attention to a few more views bear- 
ing on the question of whether it amounts to a satis- 
factory answer. The men who were determined 
that that amendment should not get into the bill and 
spoil the place where the Dred Scott decision was 

25 to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it some- 
where. One of these ways — one of these excuses — 
was to ask Chase to add to his proposed amendment 
a provision that the people might introduce slavery 
if they wanted to. They very well knew Chase would 

30 do no such thing, that Mr. Chase was one of the 
men differing from them on the broad principle of 



MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 29 

his insisting that freedom was better than slavery, — ■ 
a man who would not consent to enact a law, penned 
with his own hand, by which he was made to recog- 
nize slavery on the one hand, and liberty on the 
other, as precisely equal; and when they insisted on 5 
his doing this, they very well knew they insisted on 
that which he would not for a moment think of 
doing, and that they were only bluffing him. I be- 
lieve (I have not, since he made his answer, had a 
chance to examine the journals or " Congressional 10 
Globe " and therefore speak from memory) — I be- 
lieve the state of the bill at that time, according to 
parliamentary rules, was such that no member could 
propose an additional amendment to Chase's amend- 
ment. I rather think this is the truth, — the Judge 15 
shakes his head. Very well. I would like to know, 
then, if they wanted Chase's amendment fixed over, 
why somebody else could not have oifered to do it? 
If they wanted it amended, why did they not offer 
the amendment? Why did they stand there taunt- 20 
ing and quibbling at Chase? Why did they not put 
it in themselves? But to put it on the other ground : 
suppose that there was such an amendment offered, 
and Chase's was an amendment to an amendment; 
until one is disposed of by parliamentary law, you 25 
cannot pile another on. Then all these gentlemen 
had to do was to vote Chase's on, and then, in the 
amended form in which the whole stood, add their 
own amendment to it, if they wanted to put it in 
that shape. This was all they were obliged to do, 30 
and the ayes and noes show that there were thirty- 



30 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

six who voted it down, against ten who voted in 
favor of it. The thirty-six held entire sway and 
control. They could in some form or other have put 
that bill in the exact shape they wanted. If there 
5 was a rule preventing their amending it at the time, 
they could pass that, and then, Chase's amendment 
being merged, put it in the shape they wanted. They 
did not choose to do so, but they went into a quibble 
with Chase to get him to add what they knew he 

lo would not add, and because he would not, they stand 
upon the flimsy pretext for voting down what they 
argued was the meaning and intent of their own bill. 
They left room thereby for this Dred Scott decision, 
which goes very far to make slavery national 

15 throughout the United States. 

I pass one or two points I have, because my time 
will very soon expire ; but I must be allowed to say 
that Judge Douglas recurs again, as he did upon one 
or two other occasions, to the enormity of Lincoln, 

20 — an insignificant individual like Lincoln, — upon his 
ipse dixit charging a conspiracy upon a large num- 
ber of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, 
and two Presidents, to nationalize slavery. I want 
to say that, in the first place, I have made no charge 

25 of this sort upon ipse dixit. I have only arrayed 
the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to 
the understanding of others, saying what I think it 
proves, but giving you the means of judging whether 
it proves it or not. This is precisely what I have 

30 done. I have not placed it upon my ipse dixit at 
all. On this occasion, I wish to recall his attention 



MR. LINCOLUS SPEECH 31 

to a piece of evidence which I brought forward at 
Ottawa on Saturday, showing that he had made 
substantially the same charge against substantially 
the same persons, excluding his dear self from the 
category. I ask him to give some attention to the 5 
evidence which I brought forward that he himself 
had discovered a " fatal blow being struck " against 
the right of the people to exclude slavery from their 
limits, which fatal blow he assumed as in evidence 
in an article in the Washington " Union " published 10 
" by authority." I ask by whose authority ? He dis- 
covers a similar or identical provision in the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution. Made by whom ? The f ramers of 
that Constitution. Advocated by whom ? By all the 
members of the party in the nation, who advocated 15 
the introduction of Kansas into the Union under the 
Lecompton Constitution. 

I have asked his attention to the evidence that he 
arrayed to prove that such a fatal blow was being 
struck, and to the facts which he brought forward 20 
in support of that charge, — being identical with the 
one which he thinks so villainous in me. He pointed 
it, not at a newspaper editor merely, but at the Pres- 
ident and his Cabinet and the members of Congress 
advocating the Lecompton Constitution and those 25 
framxing that instrument. I must again be permitted 
to remind him that although my ipse dixit may not 
be as great as his, yet it somewhat reduces the force 
of his calling my attention to the enormity of my 
making a like charge against him. 30 

Go on, Judge Douglas. 



32 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 

^. Ladies and Gentlemen : The silence with which 
"^ you have Hstened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is 

5 creditable to this vast audience, composed of men 
of various political parties. Nothing is more honor- 
able to any large mass of people assembled for the 
purpose of a fair discussion than that kind and re- 
spectful attention that is yielded, not only to your 

lo political friends, but to those who are opposed to^ 
you in politics. / 

I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln 
to the conclusion that he had better define his posi- 
tion on certain political questions to which I called 

15 his attention at Ottawa. He there showed no dispo- 
sition, no inclination, to answer them. I did not 
present idle questions for him to answer, merely for 
my gratification. I laid the foundation for those in- 
terrogatories by showing that they constituted the 

20 platform of the party whose nominee he is for the 
Senate. I did not presume that I had the right to 
catechise him as I saw proper, unless I showed that 
his party, or a majority of it, stood upon the plat- 
form and were in favor of the propositions upon 

25 which my questions were based. I desired simply to 
know, inasmuch as he had been nominated as the 
first, last and only choice of his party, whether he 
concurred in the platform which that party had 
adopted for its government. In a few minutes I 

y^ will proceed to review the answers which he has 
given to these interrogatories; but, in order to re- 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 33 

lieve his anxiety, I will first respond to these which 
he has presented to me. Mark you, he has not pre- 
sented interrogatories which have ever received the 
sanction of the party with which I am acting, and 
hence he has no other foundation, for them than his 5 
own curiosity. 

First, he desires to know if the people of Kansas 
shall form a constitution by means entirely proper 
and unobjectionable, and ask admission into the 
Union as a State, before they have the requisite 10 
population for a member of Congress, whether I 
will vote for that admission. Well, now, I regret 
exceedingly that he did not answer that interroga- 
tory himself before he put it to me, in order that 
we might understand, and not be left to infer, on 15 
which side* he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last 
session of Congress, voted from the beginning to 
the end against the admission of Oregon, although a 
Free State, because she had not the requisite popula- 
tion for a member of Congress. Mr. Trumbull 20 
would not consent, under any circumstances, to let 
a State, free or slave, come into the Union until it 
had the requisite population. As Mr. Trumbull is 
in the field, fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like 
to have Mr. Lincoln answer his own question, and 25 
tell me whether he is fighting Trumbull on that 
issue or not. But I will answer his question. In 
reference to Kansas, it is my opinion that as she 
has population enough to constitute a Slave State, 
she has people enough for a Free State. I will not 30 
make Kansas an exceptional case to the other States 



34 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

of the Union. I liold it to be a sound rule, of univer- 
sal application, to require a Territory to contain the 
requisite population for a member of Congress be- 
fore it is admitted as a State into the Union. I made 
5 that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I re- 
newed it during the last session, in a bill providing 
that no Territory of the United States should form a 
constitution and apply for admission until it had 
the requisite population. On another occasion I 
10 proposed that neither Kansas nor any other Terri- 
tory should be admitted until it had the requisite 
population. Congress did not adopt any of my prop- 
ositions containing this general rule, but did make 
an exception of Kansas. I will stand by that excep- 
ts tion. Either Kansas must come in as a Free State, 
with whatever population she may have, or the rule 
must be applied to all the other Territories alike. I 
therefore answer at once, that, it having been decided 
that Kansas has people enough for a Slave State, I 
=0 hold that she has enough for a Free State. I hope 
Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my answer ; and now I 
would like to get his answer to his own interroga- 
tory, — whether or not he will vote to admit Kansas 
before she has the requisite population. I want to 
25 know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before 
that Territory has the requisite population. Mr. 
Trumbull will not, and the same reason that com- 
mits Mr. Trumbull against the admission of Oregon 
commits him against Kansas, even if she should 
3o apply for admission as a Free State. If there is any 
sincerity, any truth, in the argument of Mr. Trum- 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 35 

bull in the Senate, against the admission of Oregon 
because she had not 93,420 people, although her 
population was larger than that of Kansas, he stands 
pledged against the admission of both Oregon and 
Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I would 5 
like Mr. Lincoln to answer this question. I would 
like him to take his own medicine. If he differs 
with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer his argument 
against the admission of Oregon, instead of poking 
questions at me. ..-""lo 

The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lin- 
coln is, Can the people of a Territory in any lawful 
way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United 
States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to 
the formation of a State constitution? I answer i5 
emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer 
a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in 
my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful 
means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to 
the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln 20 
knew that I had answered that question over and 
over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill 
on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, 
and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to 
be in doubt as to my position on that question. It 25 
matters not what way the Supreme Court may here- 
after decide as to the abstract question whether 
slavery may or may not go into a Territory under 
the Constitution, the people have the lawful means 
to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the 30 
reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour 



36 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regu- 
lations. Those police regulations can only be estab- 
lished by the local legislature ; and if the people are 
opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to 
5 that body who will by unfriendly legislation effect- 
ually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. 
If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation 
will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the 
decision of the Supreme Court may be on that ab- 

lo stract question, still the right of the people to make 
a Slave Territory or a Free Territory is perfect and 
complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lin- 
coln deems my answer satisfactory on that point. 
In this connection, I will notice the charge which 

15 he has introduced in relation to Mr. Chase's amend- 
ment. I thought that I had chased that amendment 
out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but it seems 
that it still haunts his imagination, and he is not yet 
satisfied. I had supposed that he would be ashamed 

20 to press that question further. He is a lawyer, and 
has been a member of Congress, and has occupied 
his time and amused you by telling you about par- 
liamentary proceedings. He ought to have known 
better than to try to palm off his miserable imposi- 

25 tions upon this intelligent audience. The Nebraska 
bill provided that the legislative power and authority 
of the said Territory should extend to all rightful 
subjects of legislation consistent with the organic 
act and the Constitution of the United States. I did 

30 not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all 
the power that it was possible for Congress to give, 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 37 

without violating the Constitution, to the Territorial 
legislature, with no exception or limitation on the 
subject of slavery at all. The language of that bill 
which I have quoted gave the full power and the 
full authority over the subject of slavery, affirma- 5 
tively and negatively, to introduce it or exclude it, 
so far as the Constitution of the United States would 
permit. What more could Mr. Chase give by his 
amendment? Nothing. He offered his amendment 
for the identical purpose for which Mr. Lincoln is 10 
using it, — to enable demagogues in the country to 
try and deceive the people. 

His amendment was to this effect. It provided 
that the legislature should have the power to exclude 
slavery ; and General Cass suggested, " Why not ^5 
give the power to introduce as well as exclude ? " 
The answer was. They have the power already in 
the bill to do both. Chase was afraid his amendment 
would be adopted if he put the alternative proposi- 
tion, and so make it fair both ways, but would not 20 
yield. He offered it for the purpose of having it re- 
jected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed over 
and over again, simply to make capital out of it for 
the stump. He expected that it would be capital 
for small politicians in the country, and that they 25 
would make an effort to deceive the people with it; 
and he was not mistaken, for Lincoln is carrying 
out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the 
Nebraska bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all 
the power which the Constitution would permit. 2P 
Could Congress confer any more? Could Congress 



38 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

go beyond the Constitution of the country ? We gave 
all a full grant, with no exception in regard to slav- 
ery one way or the other. We left that question as 
we left all others, to be decided by the people for 

5 themselves, just as they please. I will not occupy my 
time on this question. I have argued it before, all 
over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful city 
of Freeport; I have argued it in the North, the 
South, the East, and the West, avowing the same 

lo sentiments and the same principles. I have not been 
afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I 
w^aid be trotted down into Egypt. 
"^^The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented 
is. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall 

15 decide that a State of this Union cannot exclude 
slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it? I 
am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. 
[" A schoolboy knows better."] Yes, a schoolboy 
does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast 

20 an imputation upon the Supreme Court. He knows 
that there never was but one man in America, 
claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who 
ever for a moment pretended such a thing. It is 
true that the Washington " Union," in an article 

25 published on the 17th of last December, did put 
forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on 
the floor of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lin- 
coln now pretends was against the President. The 
" Union " had claimed that slavery had a right to 

30 go into the Free States, and that any provision in 
the Constitution or laws of the Free States to the 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 39 

contrary were null and void. I denounced it in the 
Senate, as I said before, and I was the first man who 
did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and 
Hale, and Wilson, and the whole Black Republican 
side of the Senate, were silent. They left it to me 5 
to denounce it. And what was the reply made to 
me on that occasion ? Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got 
up and undertook to lecture me on the ground that 
I ought not to have deemed the article worthy of 
notice, and ought not to have replied to it; that 10 
there was not one man, woman, or child south of 
the Potomac, in any Slave State, who did not repu- 
diate any such pretension. Mr. Lincoln knov/s that 
that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he 
asks this question. He might as well ask me. Sup- ^5 
pose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanc- 
tion it ; and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, 
in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done 
with him. He casts an imputation upon the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, by supposing that 20 
they would violate the Constitution of the United 
States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. 
It would be an act of moral treason that no man on 
the bench could ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln him- 
self would never in his partisan feelings so far for- 25 
get what was right as to be guilty of such an act. / 
The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is, Are you ni 
favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard 
as to how such acquisition may affect the tjnion on 
the Slavery question? This question is very ingen- 3^ 
iously and cunningly put. 



40 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly 
that under no circumstances shall we acquire any 
more territory, unless slavery is first prohibited in 
the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in 

5 favor of that proposition. Are you [addressing Mr. 
Lincoln] opposed to the acquisition of any more ter- 
ritory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is 
prohibited in it? That he does not like to answer. 
When I ask him whether he stands up to that article 

lo in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fash- 
ion, and without answering it, asks rne whether I 
am in favor of acquiring territory without regard to 
how it may affect the Union on the slavery question. 
I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our 

15 growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that 
I am in favor of it, without reference to the question 
of slavery; and when we have acquired it, I will 
leave the people free to do as they please, either to 
make it slave or free territory, as they prefer. It 

20 is idle to tell me or you that we have territory 
enough. Our fathers supposed that we had enough 
when our territory extended to the Mississippi 
River ; but a few years' growth and expansion satis- 
fied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana 

25 territory, from the West branch of the Mississippi 
to the British possessions, was acquired. Then we 
acquired Oregon, then California and New Mexico. 
We have enough now for the present; but this is a 
young and growing nation. It swarms as often as 

30 a hive of bees ; and as new swarms are turned out 
each year, there must be hives in which they can 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 41 

gather and make their honey. In less than fifteen 
years, if the same progress that has distinguished 
this country for the last fifteen years continues, every 
foot of vacant land between this and the Pacific 
Ocean, owned by the United States, will be occupied. 5 
Will you not continue to increase at the end of fif- 
teen years as well as now ? I tell you, increase, and 
raultiply, and expand, is the law of this nation's ex- 
istence. You cannot limit this great Republic by 
mere boundary lines, saying, " Thus far shalt thou 10 
go, and no further." Any one of you gentlemen 
might as well say to a son twelve years old that he 
is big enough, and must not grow any larger; and 
in order to prevent his growth, put a hoop around 
him to keep him to his present size. What would be 15 
the result ? Either the hoop must burst and be rent 
asunder, or the child must die. So it would be with 
this great nation. With our natural increase, grow- 
ing with a rapidity unknown in any part of the 
globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing 20 
from despotism in the old world to seek refuge in 
our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into 
this country that requires more land, more territory 
upon which to settle ; and just as fast as our interests 
and our destiny require additional territory in the 25 
North, in the South, or on the islands of the ocean, 
I am for it; and when we acquire it, will leave the 
people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as 
they please on the subject of slavery and every other 
question. 30 

I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself 



42 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

answered on his four points. He racked his brain 
so much in devising these four questions that he ex- 
hausted himself, and had not strength enough to 
invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a 
5 council with his advisers, Love joy, Farnsworth, and 
Fred Douglass, he will frame and propound others. 
[" Good, good."] You Black Republicans who say 
good, I have no doubt think that they are all good 
men. I have reason to recollect that some people in 

lo this country think that Fred Douglass is a very good 
man. The last time I came here to make a speech, 
while talking from the stand to you, people of Free- 
port, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage — and a 
magnificent one it was — drive up and take a position 

15 on the outside of the crowd ; a beautiful young lady 
was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass 
and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the 
carriage acted as driver. I saw this in your own 
town. [" What of it? "] All I have to say of it is 

20 this, that if you, Black Republicans, think that the 
negro ought to be on a social equality with your 
wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with 
your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have per- 
fect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred 

25 Douglass's kinsmen, another rich black negro, is 
now traveling in this part of the State, making 
speeches for his friend Lincoln as the champion of 
black men. [" What have you to say against it? "] 
All I have to say on that subject is, that those of 

30 you who believe that the negro is your equal and 
ought to be on an equality with you socially, politi- 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 43 

cally, and legally, have a right to entertain those 
opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln. 

I have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answers to 
the interrogatories contained in my speech at Ot- 
tawa, and which he has pretended to reply to here 5 
to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a great parade of the 
fact that I quoted a platform as having been adopted 
by the Black Republican party at Springfield in 1854, 
which, it turns out, was adopted at another place. 
Mr. Lincoln loses sight of the thing itself in his 10 
ecstasies over the mistake I made in stating the place 
where it was done. He thinks that that platform was 
not adopted on the right " spot." 

When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lincoln 
to ascertain whether he now stands pledged to that 15 
creed, — to the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive 
Slave law, a refusal to admit any more Slave States 
into the Union, even if the people want them, a de- 
termination to apply the Wilmot Proviso, not only 
to all the territory we now have, but all that we may 20 
hereafter acquire, — he refused to answer; and his 
followers say, in excuse, that the resolutions upon 
which I based my interrogatories were not adopted 
at the '' right spot." Lincoln and his political friends 
are great on *' spots." In Congress, as a representa- 25 
tive of this State, he declared the Mexican war to be 
unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or 
acknowledge his own country to be right in the con- 
test, because he said that American blood was not 30 
shed on American soil in the ''right spot.'' And now 
he cannot answer the questions I put to him at Ot- 



44 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

tawa because the resolutions I read were not adopted 
at the ''right spot." It may be possible that I was led 
into an error as to the spot on which the resolutions 
I then read were proclaimed, but I was not, and am 
5 not, in error as to the fact of their forming the basis 
of the creed of the Republican party when that party 
was first organized. I will state to you the evidence 
I had, and upon which I relied for my statement that 
the resolutions in question were adopted at Spring- 

^^ field on the 5th of October, 1854. Although I was 
aware that such resolutions had been passed in this 
district, and nearly all the Northern Congressional 
Districts and County Conventions, I had not noticed 
whether or not they had been adopted by any State 

^5 convention. In 1856, a debate arose in Congress 
between Major Thomas L. Harris, of the Spring- 
field District, and Mr. Norton, of the Joliet District, 
on political matters connected with our State, in the 
course of which, Major Harris quoted those resolu- 

2° tions as having been passed by the first Republican 
State Convention that ever assembled in Illinois. I 
knew that Major Harris was remarkable for his 
accuracy, that he was a very conscientious and sin- 
cere man, and I also noticed that Norton did not 

25 question the accuracy of this statement. I therefore 
took it for granted that it was so ; and the other day 
when I concluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa, 
I wrote to Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the " State 
Register," at Springfield, calling his attention to 

30 them, telling him that I had been informed that 
Major Harris was lying sick at Springfield, and de- 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 45 

siring him to call upon him and ascertain all the 
facts concerning the resolutions, the time and the 
place where they were adopted. In reply, Mr, Lan- 
phier sent me two copies of his paper, which I have 
here. The first is a copy of the '' State Register," 5 
published at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, 
on the i6th of October, 1854, only eleven days after 
the adjournment of the Convention, from which I 
desire to read the following: 

*' During the late discussions in this city, Lincoln 10 
made a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied. In 
Lincoln's speech he took the broad ground that, accord- 
ing to the Declaration of Independence, the whites and 
blacks are equal. From this he drew the conclusion, 
which he several times repeated, that the white man had ^5 
no right to pass laws for the government of the black 
man without the nigger's consent. This speech of 
Lincoln's was heard and applauded by all the Abolition- 
ists assembled in Springfield. So soon as Mr. Lincoln 
was done speaking, Mr. Codding arose, and requested 20 
all the delegates to the Black Republican Convention to 
withdraw into the Senate chamber. They did so; and 
after long deliberation, they laid down the following 
Abolition platform as the platform on which they 
stood. We call the particular attention of all our read- 25 
ers to it." 

Then follows the identical platform, word for 
word, which I read at Ottawa. Now, that was pub- 
lished in Mr. Lincoln's own town, eleven days after 
the Convention was held, and it has remained on 30 
record up to this day never contradicted. 



46 JOINT DEBATE AT FREE? CRT 

When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and 
questioned Mr. Lincoln in relation to them, he said 
that his name was on the committee that reported 
them, but he did not serve, nor did he think he 
5 served, because he was, or thought he was, in Taze- 
well County at the time the Convention was in ses- 
sion. He did not deny that the resolutions were 
passed by the Springfield Convention. He did not 
know better, and evidently thought that they were; 

lo but afterward his friends declared that they had 
discovered that they varied in some respects from 
the resolutions passed by that Convention. I ha-ze 
shown you that I had good evidence for believing 
that the resolution: had been passed at Springfield. 

15 Mr. Lincoln ought to have known better ; but not a 
word is said about his ignorance on the subject, 
whilst I, notwithstanding the circumstances, am 
accused of forgery. 

Now, I will show you that if I have made a mis- 

20 take as to the place where these resolutions were 
adopted, — and when I get down to Springfield I will 
investigate tlie matter, and see whether or not I 
have, — that the principles they enunciate were 
adopted as the Black Republican platform [" white, 

25 white"], in the various counties and Congressional 
Districts throughout the north end of the State in 
1854. This platform was adopted in nearly every 
county that gave a Black Republican majority for 
the Legislature in that year, and here is a man 

30 [pointing to Mr, Denio, who sat on the stand near 
Deacon Bross] who knows as well as any living man 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 47 

that it was the creed of the Black Republican party 
at that time. I would be willing to call Denio as a 
witness, or any other honest man belonging to that 
party. I will now read the resolutions adopted at 
the Rockford Convention on the 30th of Au- 5 
gust, 1854, which nominated Washburne for Con- 
gress. You elected him on the following plat- 
form: 

"Resolved, That the continued and increasing ag- 
gressions of slavery in our country are destructive of ic 
the best rights of a free people, and that such aggres- 
sions [cannot] be successfully resisted without the 
united political action of all good men. 

" Resolved, That the citizens of the United States 
hold in their hands, a peaceful, constitutional, and effi- ^5 
cient remedy against the encroachments of the slave 
power, — the ballot box; and if that remedy is boldly 
and wisely applied the principles of liberty and eternal 
justice will be established. 

''Resolved, That we accept this issue forced upon 20 
us by the slave power, and, in defence of freedom, will 
co-operate and be known as Republicans, pledged to the 
accomplishment of the following purposes: — 

" To bring the Administration of the Government 
back to the control of first principles; to restore Kan- 25 
sas and Nebraska to the position of Free Territories; 
to repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law; 
to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists; to 
prohibit the admission of any more Slave States into the 
Union; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over 30 
which the General Government has exclusive jurisdic- 
tion; and to resist the acquisition of any more Terri- 



48 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

tories, unless the introduction of slavery therein for- 
ever shall have been prohibited. 

''Resolved^ That in furtherance of these principles 
we will use such constitutional and lawful means as 
5 shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and 
that we will support no man for office under the Gen- 
eral or State Government who is not positively com- 
mitted to the support of these principles, and whose 
personal character and conduct is not a guarantee that 
he is reliable, and shall abjure all party allegiance and 
-- ties. 

"Resolved, That we cordially invite persons of all 
former political parties whatever, in favor of the object 
expressed in the above resolutions, to unite with u^ 
in carrying them into effect." 

rs 

Well, you think that is a very good platform, do 
you not? If you do, if you approve it now, and 
think it is all right, you will not join with those men 
who say I libel you by calling these your principles, 

20 will you? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains; Mr. Lin- 
coln charges that I did you and him an injustice by 
saying that this was the platform of your party. I 
am told that Washbume made a speech in Galena 
last night, in which he abused me awfully for bring- 

25 ing to light this platform, on which he was elected 
to Congress. He thought that you had forgotten 
it, as he and Mr. Lincoln desired to. He did not 
deny that you had adopted it, and that he had sub- 
scribed to and was pledged by it, but he did not 

30 think it was fair to call it up and remind the people 
that it was their platform.' 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 49 

But. I am glad to find that you are more honest in 
your Abohtionism than your leaders, by avowing 
that it is your platform, and right, in your opinion. 

In the adoption of that platform, you not only 
declared that you would resist the admission of any 5 
more Slave States, and work for the repeal of the 
Fugitive Slave law, but you pledged yourselves not 
to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who 
was not committed to these principles. You were 
thus committed. Similar resolutions to those were 10 
adopted in your county Convention here, and now 
with your admissions that they are your platform 
and embody your sentiments now as they did then, 
what do you think of Mr. Lincoln, your candidate 
for the United States Senate, who is attempting to 15 
dodge the responsibility of this platform, because 
it was not adopted in the right spot ? I thought that 
it was adopted in Springfield; but it turns out it 
was not, that it was adopted at Rockford, and in 
the various counties which comprise this Congres- 20 
sional District. When I get into the next district, 
I will show that the same platform was adopted 
there, and so on through the State, until I nail the 
responsibility of it upon the Black Republican party 
throughout the State. 25 

A voice: Couldn't you modify, and call it • 
brown ? 

Mr. Douglas: Not a bit. I thought that you 
were becoming a little brown when your members 
in Congress voted for the Crittenden-Montgomery 3© 
bill; but since you have backed out from that posi- 



50 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

tion and gone back to Abolitionism you are black, 
and not brown. 

Gentlemen, I have shown you what your platform 
was in 1854. You still adhere to it. The same 
5 platform was adopted by nearly all the counties 
where the Black Republican party had a majority 
in 1854. I wish now to call your attention to the 
action of your representatives in the Legislature 
when they assembled together at Springfield. In 

10 the first place, you must remember that this was the 
organization of a new party. It is so declared in 
the resolutions themselves, which say that you are 
going to dissolve all old party ties and call the new 
party Republican. The old Whig party was to have 

15 its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Democratic 
party was to be annihilated and blotted out of 
existence, whilst in lieu of these parties the Black 
Republican party was to be organized on this Aboli- 
tion platform. You know who the chief leaders 

20 were in breaking up and destroying these two great 
parties. Lincoln on the one hand, and Trumbull on 
the other, being disappointed politicians, and having 
retired, or been driven to obscurity by an outraged 
constituency because of their political sins, formed 

25 a scheme to Abolitionize the two parties, and lead 
the old line Whigs and old line Democrats captive, 
bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. 
Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Love joy were 
here to christen them whenever they were brought 

30 in. Lincoln went to work to dissolve the old line 
Whig party. Clay was dead ; and although the sod 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY ^1 

was not yet green on his grave, this man undertook 
to bring into disrepute those great Compromise 
measures of 1850, with which Clay and Webster 
were identified. Up to 1854 the old Whig party and 
the Democratic party had stood on a common plat- 5 
form so far as this slavery question was concerned. 
You Whigs and we Democrats differed about the 
bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and 
the sub-treasury, but we agreed on this slavery ques- 
tion, and the true mode of preserving the peace and 10 
harmony of the Union. The Compromise measures 
of 1850 were introduced by Clay, were defended by 
Webster, and supported by Cass, and were approved 
by Fillmore, and sanctioned by the National men of 
both parties. They constituted a common plank 15 
upon which both Whigs and Democrats stood. In 
1852 the Whig party, in its last National Convention 
at Baltimore, indorsed and approved these measures 
of Clay, and so did the National Convention of the 
Democratic party held that same year. Thus the 20 
old line Whigs and the old line Democrats stood 
pledged to the great principle of self-government^ 
which guarantees to the people of each Territory 
the right to decide the slavery question for them- 
selves. In 1854, after the death of Clay and Web- 25 
ster, Mr. Lincoln, on the part of the Whigs, under- 
took to Abolitionize the Whig party, by dissolving 
it, transferring the members into the Abolition 
camp, and making them train under Giddings, Fred 
Douglass, Lovejoy, Chase, Farnsworth, and other 30 
Abolition leaders. Trumbull undertook to dissolve 



52 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

the Democratic party by taking old Democrats into 
the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincoln was aided in his 
efforts by many leading Whigs throughout the State, 
your member of Congress, Mr. Washburne, being 
5 one of the most active. Trumbull was aided by 
many renegades from the Democratic party, among 
whom were John Wentworth, Tom Turner, and 
others, with whom you are familiar. 

[Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, 

lo here interposed, and said that he had drawn the res- 
olutions which Senator Douglas had read.] 

Mr. Douglas : Yes, and Turner says that he drew 
these resolutions. [" Hurrah for Turner," "Hur- 
rah for Douglas."] That is right; give Turner 

15 cheers for drawing the resolutions if you approve 
them. If he drew those resolutions, he will not 
deny that they are the creed of the Black Republican 
party. 

Mr. Turner : They are our creed exactly. 

20 Mr. Douglas: And yet Lincoln denies that he 
stands on them. Mr. Turner says that the creed of 
the Black Republican party is the admission of no 
more Slave States, and yet Mr. Lincoln declares 
that he would not like to be placed in a position 

25 where he would have to vote for them. All I have 
to say to friend Lincoln is, that I do not think there 
is much danger of his being placed in such ar 
embarrassing position as to be obliged to vote or 
the admission of any more Slave States; I propose 

30 out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any sucl: 
necessity. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 53 

When the bargain between Lincoln and Trum- 
bull was completed for Abolitionizing the Whig and 
Democratic parties, they " spread " over the State, 
Lincoln still pretending to be an old line Whig, in 
order to " rope in " the Whigs, and Trumbull pre- 5 
tending to be as good a Democrat as he ever was, 
in order to coax the Democrats over into the Aboli- 
tion ranks. They played the part that " decoy 
ducks " play down on the Potomac River. In that 
part of the country they make artificial ducks, and 10 
put them on the water in places where the wild 
ducks are to be found, for the purpose of decoying 
them. Well, Lincoln and Trumbull played the part 
of these "decoy ducks," and deceived enough old 
line Whigs and old line Democrats to elect a Black 15 
Republican Legislature. When that Legislature met, 
the first thing it did was to elect as Speaker of 
the House the very man who is now boasting that 
he wrote the Abolition platform on which Lincoln 
will not stand. I want to know of Mr. Turner 20 
whether or not, when he was elected, he was a good 
embodiment of Republican principles? 

Mr. Turner : I hope I was then, and am now. 

Mr. Douglas : He swears that he hopes he was 
then, and is now. He wrote that Black Republican 25 
platform, and is satisfied with it now. I admire and 
acknowledge Turner's honesty. Every man of you 
knows that what he says about these resolutions 
being the platform of the Black Republican party is 
true, and you also know that each one of these men 30 
who are shuffling and trying to deny it is only try- 



54 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

ing to cheat the people out of their votes for the 
purpose of deceiving them still more after the 
election. I propose to trace this thing a little fur- 
ther, in order that you can see what additional evi- 

5 dence there is to fasten this revolutionary platform 
upon the Black Republican party. When the Legis- 
lature assembled, there was a United States Senator 
to elect in the place of General Shields, and before 
they proceeded to ballot. Love joy insisted on laying 

lo down certain principles by which to govern the 
party. It has been published to the world and satis- 
factorily proven that there was, at the time the 
alliance was made between Trumbull and Lincoln to 
Abolitionize the two parties, an agreement that Lin- 

15 coin should take Shields's place in the United States 
Senate, and Trumbull should have mine so soon as 
they could conveniently get rid of me. When Lin- 
coln was beaten for Shields's place, in a manner I 
will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very sore and 

20 restive ; his friends grumbled, and some of them 
came out and charged that the most infamous 
treachery had been practiced against him ; that the 
bargain was that Lincoln was to have had Shields's 
place, and Trumbull was to have waited for mine, 

25 but that Trumbull, having the control of a few 
Abolitionized Democrats, he prevented them from 
voting for Lincoln, thus keeping him within a few 
votes of an election until he succeeded in forcing 
the party to drop him and elect Trumbull. Well. 

30 Trumbull having cheated Lincoln, his friends made 
a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet, 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 55 

the party was obliged to come forward, in advance, 
at the last State election, and make a pledge that 
they would go for Lincoln and nobody else. Lin- 
coln could not be silenced in any other way. 

Now, there are a great many Black Republicans 5 
of you who do not know this thing was done. 
[" White, white," and great clamor.] I wish to 
remind you that while Mr. Lincoln was speaking 
there was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard 
enough to interrupt him. But I know that the shoe 10 
is pinching you. I am clinching Lincoln now, and 
you are scared to death for the result. I have seen 
this thing before. I have seen men make appoint- 
ments for joint discussions, and the moment their 
man has been heard, try to interrupt and prevent a 15 
fair hearing of the other side. I have seen your 
mobs before, and defy your wrath. [Tremendous 
applause.] My friends, do not cheer, for I need my 
whole time. The object of the opposition is to 
occupy my attention in order to prevent me from 20 
giving the whole evidence and nailing this double 
dealing on the Black Republican party. As I have 
before said. Love joy demanded a declaration of 
principles on the part of the Black Republicans of 
the Legislature before going into an election for 25 
United States Senator. He offered the following 
preamble and resolutions which I hold in my 
hand: 

" Whereas, Human slavery is a violation of the prin- 
ciples of natural and revealed rights; and whereas the 30 



56 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

fathers of the Revolution, fully imbued with the spirit 
of these principles, declared freedom to be the inalien- 
able birthright of all men; and whereas the preamble 
to the Constitution of the United States avers that that 
5 instrument was ordained to establish justice, and secure 
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; 
and, whereas, in furtherance of the above principles, 
slavery was forever prohibited in the old Northwest 
Territory, and more recently in all that Territory lying 

lo west and north of the State of Missouri, by the act of 
the Federal Government; and whereas the repeal of 
the prohibition last referred to was contrary to the 
wishes of the people of Illinois, a violation of an im- 
plied compact long deemed sacred by the citizens of the 

15 United States and a wide departure from the uniform 
action of the General Government in relation to the 
extension of slavery; therefore, 

" Resolved, by the House of Representatives, the Sen- 
ate concurring therein. That our Senators in Congress 

20 be instructed, and our Representatives requested to 
introduce, if not otherwise introduced, and to vote for 
a bill to restore such prohibition to the aforesaid Ter- 
ritories, and also to extend a similar prohibition to all 
territory which now belongs to the United States, or 

25 which may hereafter come under their jurisdiction. 

"Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be in- 
structed, and our Representatives requested, to vote 
against the admission of any State into the Union, the 
Constitution of which does not prohibit slavery, whether 

30 the territory out of which such State may have been 

formed shall have been acquired by conquest, treaty, 

purchase, or from original territory of the United 

States. 

"Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 57 

instructed, and our Representatives requested, to intro- 
duce and vote for a bill to repeal an Act entitled ' an 
Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escap- 
ing from the service of their masters;' and, failing in 
that, for such a modification of it as shall secure the 5 
right of habeas corpus and trial by jury before the reg- 
ularly constituted authorities of the State, to all persons 
claimed as owing service or labor." 

Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. Love- 
joy immediately preceding the election of Senator. 10 
They declared, first, that the Wilmot Proviso must 
be applied to all territory north of 36 deg. 30 min. ; 
secondly, that it must be applied to all territory 
south of 36 deg. 30 min.; thirdly, that it must be 
applied to all the territory now owned by the United 15 
States ; and finally, that it must be applied to all 
territory hereafter to be acquired by the United 
States. The next resolution declares that no more 
Slave States shall be admitted into this Union 
under any circumstances whatever, no matter 20 
whether they are formed out of territory now owned 
by us or that we may hereafter acquire, by treaty, 
by Congress, or in any manner whatever. The next 
resolution demands the unconditional repeal of the 
Fugitive Slave law, although its unconditional 25 
repeal would leave no provision for carrying out 
that clause of the Constitution of the United States 
which guarantees the surrender of fugitives. If 
they could not get an unconditional repeal, they 
demanded that that law should be so modified as to 30 
I make it as nearly useless as possible. Now, I want 



58 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

to show you who voted for these resolutions. When 
the vote was taken on the first resolution it was 
decided in the affirmative, — yeas 41, nays 32. You 
will find that this is a strict party vote, between the 
5 Democrats on the one hand, and the Black Repub- 
licans on the other. [Cries of " White, white," and 
clamor.] I know your name, and always call things 
by their right name. The point I wish to call your 
attention to is this: that these resolutions were 

10 adopted on the 7th day of February, and that on the 
8th they went into an election for a United States 
Senator, and that day every man who voted for these 
resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted for Lin- 
coln for the United States Senate. [" Give us their 

15 names."] I will read the names over to you if you 
want them, but I believe your object is to occupy 
my time. 

On the next resolution the vote stood — ^yeas 33, 
nays 40; and on the third resolution — yeas 35, nays 

20 47. I wish to impress it upon you that every man 
who voted for those resolutions, with but two excep- 
tions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for United 
States Senator. Bear in mind that the members 
who thus voted for Lincoln were elected to the Leg- 

25 islature pledged to vote for no man for office under 
the State or Federal Government who was not com- 
mitted to this Black Republican platform. They 
were all so pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by 
me, and who then represented you, and who says 

30 that he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln, 
when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 59 

was in favor of those resolutions. I now ask Mr. 
Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did you violate 
your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, or did he 
commit himself to your platform before you cast 
your vote for him ? 5 

I could go through the whole list of names here, 
and show you that all the Black Republicans in the 
Legislature, who voted for Mr. Lincoln, had voted 
on the day previous for these resolutions. For 
instance, here are the names of Sargent and Little, lo 
of Jo Daviess and Carroll, Thomas J. Turner of 
Stephenson, Lawrence of Boone and McHenry, 
Swan of Lake, Pinckney of Ogle County, and 
Lyman of Winnebago. Thus you see every member 
from your Congressional District voted for Mr. i5 
Lincoln, and they were pledged not to vote for him 
unless he was committed to the doctrine of no more 
Slave States, the prohibition of slavery in the Ter- 
ritories, and the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. 
Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged 20 
to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln was then 
committed to those propositions, or Mr. Turner 
violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. 
Either Lincoln was pledged to each one of those 
propositions, or else every Black Republican Repre- 25 
sentative from this Congressional District violated 
his pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for 
him. I ask you which horn of the dilemma will 
you take? Will you hold Lincoln up to the plat- 
form of his party, or will you accuse every Repre- 30 
sentative you had in the Legislature of violating his 



6o JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

pledge of honor to his constituents? There is no 
escape for you. Either Mr. Lincoln was committed 
to those propositions, or your members violated their 
faith. Take either horn of the dilemma you choose. 
5 There is no dodging the question ; I want Lincoln's 
answer. He says he was not pledged to repeal the 
Fugitive Slave law, that he does not quite like to 
do it; he will not introduce a law to repeal it, but 
thinks there ought to be some law ; he does not tell 

lo what it ought to be; upon the whole, he is alto- 
gether undecided, and don't know what to think or 
do. That is the substance of his answer upon the 
repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I put the question 
to him distinctly, whether he indorsed that part of 

15 the Black Republican platform which calls for the 
entire abrogation and repeal of the Fugitive Slave 
law. He answers, No ! that he does not indorse 
that ; but he does not tell what he is for, or what he 
will vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answer at 

20 all. Why cannot he speak out, and say what he is 
for, and what he will do ? 

In regard to there being no more Slave States, he 
is not pledged to that. He would not like, he says, 
to be put in a position where he would have to vote 

25 one way or another upon that question. I pray you, 
do not put him in a position that would embarrass 
him so much. Gentlemen, if he goes to the Senate, 
he may be put in that position, and then which way 
will he vote ? 

30 A Voice : How will you vote ? 

Mr. Douglas: I will vote for the admission of 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 6i 

just such a State as by the form of their constitu- 
tion the people show they want ; if they want slavery, 
thev shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall 
be prohibited. They can form their institutions to 
please themselves, subject only to the Constitution; 5 
and I, for one, stand ready to receive them into the 
Union. Why cannot your Black Republican can- 
didates talk out as plain as that when they are 
questioned? 

I do not want to cheat any man out of his vote. 10 
No man is deceived in regard to my principles if I 
have the power to express myself in terms explicit 
enough to convey my ideas. 

Mr. Lincoln made a speech when he was nomi- 
nated for the United States Senate which covers 15 
all these Abolition platforms. He there lays down 
a proposition so broad in its Abolitionism as to cover 
the whole ground. 

"In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not 20 
cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 
'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe 
this government cannot endure permanently, half slave 
and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I 
do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become 25 
all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of 
slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place 
it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that 
it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advo- 
cates will push it forward till it shall become alike 30 
lawful in all the States,-:old as well as new, North as 
well as South.'* 



62 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down the 
doctrine that this Union cannot endure divided as 
our fathers made it, with Free and Slave States. 
He says they must all become one thing, or all the 
5 other ; that they must all be free or all slave, or else 
the Union cannot continue to exist ; it being his 
opinion that to admit any more Slave States, to con- 
tinue to divide the Union into Free and Slave States, 
will dissolve it. I want to know of Mr. Lincoln 

lo whether he will vote for the admission of another 
Slave State. 

He tells you the Union cannot exist unless the 
States are all free or all slave; he tells you that he 
is opposed to making them all slave, and hence he is 

15 for making them all free, in order that the Union 
may exist; and yet he will not say that he will not 
vote against another Slave State, knowing that the 
Union must be dissolved if he votes for it. I ask 
you if that is fair dealing? The true intent and 

20 inevitable conclusion to be drawn from his first 
Springfield speech is, that he is opposed to the admis- 
sion of any more Slave States under any circum- 
stance. If he is so opposed, why not say so? If 
he believes this Union cannot endure divided into 

25 Free and Slave States, that they must all become free 
in order to save the Union, he is bound as an honest 
man to vote against any more Slave States. If he 
believes it, he is bound to do it. Show me that it 
is my duty, in order to save the Union, to do a par- 

30 ticular act, and I will do it, if the Constitution does 
not prohibit it. I am not for the dissolution of the 



MR, DOUGLAS'S REPLY 63 

Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no 
course of conduct that will give just cause for the 
dissolution of the Union. The hope of the friends 
of freedom throughout the world rests upon the 
perpetuity of this Union. The down-trodden and 5 
oppressed people who are suffering under European 
despotism all look with hope and anxiety to the 
American Union as the only resting place and per- 
manent home of freedom and self-government. 

Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union 10 
cannot continue to endure with Slave States in it, 
and yet he will not tell you distinctly whether he will 
vote for or against the admission of any more Slave 
States, but says he would not like to be put to the 
test. I do not think he will be put to the test. I do 15 
not think that the people of Illinois desire a man to 
represent them who would not like to be put to the 
test on the performance of a high constitutional 
duty. I will retire in shame from the Senate of the 
United States when I am not willing to be put to 20 
the test in the performance of my duty. I have been 
put to severe tests. I have stood by my principles 
in fair weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in 
the rain. I have defended the great principles of 
self-government here among you when Northern 25 
sentiment ran in a torrent against me, and I have 
defended that same great principle when Southern 
sentiment came down like an avalanche upon me. I 
was not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew 
I was right; I knew my principles were sound; I 30 
knew that the people would see in the end that I had 



64 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

done right, and I knew that the God of heaven woul 

smile upon me if I was faithful in the performanc 

of my duty. ^ 

Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption agains' 

5 the Supreme Court of the United States, anc 
two Presidents of the United States, and attempt; 
to bolster it up by saying that I did the same agains ; 
the Washington " Union." Suppose I did mala, 
that charge of corruption against the Washingtor. 

lo " Union," when it was true, does that justify him in 
making a false charge against me and others ? Thar 
is the question I would put. He says that at the, 
time the Nebraska bill was introduced, and before 
it was passed, there was a conspiracy between the 

^5 Judges of the Supreme Court, President Piercej 
President Buchanan, and myself, by that bill and 
the decision of the court to break down the barrier 
and establish slavery all over the Union. Does he 
not know that that charge is historically false as 

2o against President Buchanan? He knows that Mr. 
Buchanan was at that time in England, representing 
this country with distinguished ability at the Court 
of St. James, that he was there for a long time 
before, and did not return for a year or more after. 

25 He knows that to be true, and that fact proves his 
charge to be false as against Mr. Buchanan. Then, 
again, I wish to call his attention to the fact that 
at the time the Nebraska bill was passed, the Dred 
Scott case was not before the Supreme Court at all ; 

30 it was not upon the docket of the Supreme Court 
it had not been brought there ; and the Judges in all 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 65 

probability knew nothing of it. Thus the history 
of the country proves the charge to be false as 
against them. As to President Pierce, his high 
character as a man of integrity and honor is enough 
to vindicate him from such a charge; and as to 5 
myself, I pronounce the charge an infamous lie, 
whenever and wherever made, and by whomsoever 
made. I am willing that Mr. Lincoln should go and 
rake up every public act of mine, every measure I 
have introduced, report I have made, speech deliv- 10 
ered, and criticise them ; but when he charges upon 
me a corrupt conspiracy for the purpose of pervert- 
ing the institutions of the country, I brand it as it 
deserves. I say the history of the country proves it 
to be false, and that it could not have been possible 15 
at the time. But now he tries to protect himself in 
this charge, because I made a charge against the 
Washington " Union." My speech in the Senate 
against the Washington " Union " was made because 
it advocated a revolutionary doctrine, by declaring 20 
that the Free States had not the right- to prohibit 
slavery within their own limits. Because I made 
that charge against the Washington " Union," Mr. 
Lincoln says it was a charge against Mr. Buchanan. 
Suppose it was : is Mr. Lincoln the peculiar defender ^5 
of Mr. Buchanan? Is he so interested in the Fed- 
eral Administration, and so bound to it, that he must 
jump to the rescue and defend it from every attack 
that I may make against it? I understand the 
whole thing. The Washington " Union," under 30 
that most corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is 



(^ JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. 
Wendell was the printer of the last Black Republican 
House of Representatives ; he was a candidate before 
the present Democratic House, but was ignomini- 
5 ously kicked out ; and then he took the money which 
he had made out of the public printing by means of 
the Black Republicans, bought the Washington 
" Union," and is now publishing it in the name of 
the Democratic party, and advocating Mr. Lincoln's 

lo election to the Senate. Mr. Lincoln therefore con- 
siders an attack upon Wendell and his corrupt gang 
as a personal attack upon him. This only proves 
what I have charged, — that there is an alliance 
between Lincoln and his supporters, and the Federal 

15 office-holders of this State, and the Presidential 
aspirants out of it, to break me down at home. 

Mr. Lincoln feels bound to come in to the rescue 
of the Washington " Union." In that speech which 
I delivered in answer to the Washington " Union," 

20 I made it distinctly against the " Union/' and 
against the " Union " alone. I did not choose to 
go beyond that. If I have reason to attack the 
President's conduct, I will do it in language that 
will not be misunderstood. When I differed with the 

25 President, I spoke out so that you all heard me. 
That question passed away; it resulted in the tri- 
umph of my principle, by allowing the people to do 
as they please; and there is an end of the contro- 
versy. Whenever the great principle of self-gov- 

30 ernment, — the right of the people to make their own 
Constitution, and come into the Union with slavery 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER fy 

or without it, as they see proper, — shall again rise, 
you will find me standing firm in defence of that 
principle, and fighting whoever fights it. If Mr. 
Buchanan stands, as I doubt not he will, by the 
recommendation contained in his Message, that here- 5 
after all State constitutions ought to be submitted 
to the people before the admission of the State into 
the Union, he will find me standing by him firmly, 
shoulder to shoulder, in carrying it out. I know 
Mr. Lincoln's object: he wants to divide the Demo- lo 
cratic party, in order that he may defeat me and get 
to the Senate. 

[Mr. Douglases time here expired, and he 
stopped on the moment.] 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER I5 

My Friends: It will readily occur to you that 
I cannot, in half an hour, notice all the things that 
so able a man as Judge Douglas can say in an hour 
and a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be any- 
thing that he said upon which you would like to hear 20 
something from me, but which I omit to comment 
upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expect- 
ing an impossibility for me to go over his whole 
ground. I can but take up some of the points that 
he has dwelt upon, and employ my half-hour spe- 25 
cially on them. 

The first thing I have to say to you is a word in 



68 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

regard to Judge Douglas's declaration about the 
" vulgarity and blackguardism " in the audience, — 
that no such thing as he says, was shown by any 
Democrat while I was speaking. Now, I only wish, 
5 by way of reply on this subject, to say that while / 
was speaking, / used no " vulgarity or black- 
guardism " toward any Democrat. 

Now, my friends, I come to all this long portion 
of the Judge's speech, — perhaps half of it, — which 

lo he has devoted to the various resolutions and plat- 
forms that have been adopted in the different 
counties in the different Congressional Districts, and 
in the Illinois Legislature, v/hich he supposes are 
at variance with the positions I have assumed before 

^5 you to-day. It is true that many of these resolu- 
tions are at variance with the positions I have here 
assumed. All I have to ask is that we talk reason- 
ably and rationally about it. I happen to know, the 
Judge's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, 

2o that I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor 
tried to deceive anyone in reference to them. He 
may go and examine all the members who voted for 
me for United States Senator in 1855, after the elec- 
tion of 1854. They were pledged to certain things 

25 here at home, and were determined to have pledges 
from me; and if he will find any of these persons 
who will tell him anything inconsistent with what I 
say now, I will resign, or rather retire from the 
race, and give him no more trouble. The plain 

30 truth is this : 

At the introduction of the Nebraska policy, we 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 69 

believed there was a new era being introduced in 
the history of the RepubHc which tended to the 
spread and perpetuation of slavery. But in our 
opposition to that measure we did not agree with 
one another in everything. The people in the north 5 
end of the State were for stronger measures of 
opposition than we of the central and southern por- 
tions of the State, but we were all opposed to the 
Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feeling aiid 
that one sentiment in common. You at the north 10 
end met in your Conventions and passed your reso- 
lutions. We in the middle of the State and further 
south did not hold such Conventions and pass the 
same resolutions, although we had in general a com- 
mon view and a common sentiment. So that these 15 
meetings which the Judge has alluded to, and the 
resolutions he has read from, were local, and did 
not spread over the whole State. We at last met 
together in 1856, from all parts of the State, and we 
agreed upon a common platform. You, who held 20 
more extreme notions, either yielded those notions, 
or, if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them 
practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition 
to the measures which the opposite party were push- 
ing forward at that time. We met you then, and if 25 
there was anything yielded, it was for practical pur- 
poses. We agreed then upon a platform for the 
party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and 
now we are all bound, as a party, to that platform. 
And I say here to you, if any one expects of me — in 3° 
the case of my election — that I will do anything not 



70 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

signified by our Republican platform and my an- 
swers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that per- 
son will be deceived. I do not ask for the vote of 
any one who supposes that I have secret purposes 
5 or pledges that I dare not speak out. Cannot the 
Judge be satisfied? If he fears, in the unfortunate 
case of my election, that my going to Washington 
will enable me to advocate sentiments contrary to 
those which I expressed when you voted for and 

lo elected me, I assure him that his fears are wholly 
needless and groundless. Is the Judge really afraid 
of any such thing? I'll tell you what he is afraid of. 
He is afraid well all pull together. This is what 
alarms him more than anything else. For my part, 

15 I do hope that all of us, entertaining a common sen- 
timent in opposition to what appears to us a design 
to nationalize and perpetuate slavery, will waive 
minor differences on questions which either belong 
to the dead past or the distant future, and all pull 

20 together in this struggle. What are your senti- 
ments? If it be true that on the ground which I 
occupy — ground which I occupy as frankly and 
boldly as Judge Douglas does his, — my views, 
though partly coinciding with yours, are not as per- 

25 fectly in accordance with your feelings as his are, 
I do say to you in all candor, go for him, and not 
for me. I hope to deal in all things fairly with 
Judge Douglas, and with the people of the State, 
in this contest. And if I should never be elected to 

30 any office, I trust I may go down with no stain of 
falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 71 

hard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of 
me. The Judge has again addressed himself to the 
Abolition tendencies of a speech of mine made at 
Springfield in June last. I have so often tried to 
answer what he is always saying on that melancholy 5 
theme that I almost turn with disgust from the dis- 
cussion, — from the repetition of an answer to it. I 
trust that nearly all of this intelligent audience have 
read that speech. If you have, I may venture to 
leave it to you to inspect it closely, and see whether 10 
it contains any of those " bugaboos " which frighten 
Judge Douglas. 

^ The Judge complains that I did not fully answer 
his questions. If I have the sense to comprehend 
and answer those questions, I have done so fairly. 15 
If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully 
and fairly answer him, I aver I have not the sense 
to see how it is to be done. He says, I do not de- 
clare I w^ould in any event vote for the admission of 
a Slave State into the Union. If I have been fairly 20 
reported, he will see that I did give an explicit an- 
swer to his interrogatories; I did not merely say 
that I would dislike to be put to the test, but I said 
clearly, if I were put to the test, and a Territory 
from which slavery had been excluded should pre- 25 
sent herself with a State constitution sanctioning 
slavery, — a tnost extraordinary thing, and wholly 
unlikely to happen, — I did not see how I could avoid 
voting for her admission. But he refuses to under- 
stand that I said so, and he wants this audience to 3° 
understand that I did not say so. Yet it will be so 



^2 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

reported in the printed speech that he cannot helf 
seeing it. 

He says if I should vote for the admission of a 
Slave State I would be voting for a dissolution of 

5 the Union, because I hold that the Union cannot 
permanently exist half slave and half free. I repeat 
that I do not believe this government can endure 
permanently half slave and half free; yet I do not 
admit, nor does it all follow, that the admission of 

lo a single Slave State will permanently fix the char- 
acter and establish this as a universal slave nation. 
The Judge is very happy indeed at working up these 
quibbles. Before leaving the subject of answering 
questions, I aver as my confident belief, when you 

15 come to see our speeches in print, that you will find 
every question which he has asked me more fairly 
and boldly and fully answered than he has answered 
those which I put to him. Is not that so ? The two 
speeches may be placed side by side, and I will ven- 

20 ture to leave it to impartial judges whether his ques- 
tions have not been more directly and circumstan- 
tially answered than mine. 

Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the 
editor of the Washington " Union," alone, of enter- 

25 taining a purpose to rob the States of their power 
to exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to 
say, and I make the direct issue, that he did not 
make his charge against the editor of the " Union " 
alone. I will undertake to prove by the record here 

30 that he made that charge against more and higher 
dignitaries than the editor of the Washington 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 73 

" Union." I am quite aware that he was shirking 
and dodging around the form in which he put it, 
but I can make it manifest that he leveled his " fatal 
blow " against more persons than this Washington 
editor. Will he dodge it now by alleging that I am r 
trying to defend Mr. Buchanan against the charge ? 
Not at all. Am I not making the same charge my- 
self ? I am trying to show that you, Judge Douglas, 
are a witness on my side. I am not defending Bu- 
chanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my 10 
opinion, when he made that charge, he had an eye 
farther north than he was to-day. He was then 
fighting against people who called him a Black Re- 
publican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through 
his speech, and it is tolerably manifest that his eye 15 
was a great deal farther north than it is to-day. 
The Judge says that though he made this charge, 
Toombs got up and declared there was not a man in 
the United States, except the editor of the '' Union," 
who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that 20 
article. And thereupon I understand that the Judge 
withdrew the charge. Although he had taken ex- 
tracts from the newspaper, and then from the Le- 
compton Constitution, to show the existence of a 
conspiracy to bring about a " fatal blow," by which 25 
the States were to be deprived of the right of ex- 
cluding slavery, it all went to pot as soon as Toombs 
got up and told him it was not true. It reminds me 
of the story that John Phoenix, the California rail- 
road surveyor, tells. He says they started out from 30 
the Plaza to the Mission of Dolores. They had two 



74 JOINJ DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

ways of determining distances. One was by a chain 
and pins taken over the ground. The other was by 
a " go-it-ometer," — an invention of his own, — a 
three-legged instrument, with which he computed a 

5 series of triangles between the points. At night he 
turned to the chainman to ascertain what distance 
they had come, and found that by some mistake he 
had merely dragged the chain over the ground, 
without keeping any record. By the " go-it-ometer " 

lo he found be had made ten miles. Being skeptical 
about this, he asked a drayman who was passing 
how far it was to the Plaza. The drayman replied 
it was just half a mile; and the surveyor put it 
down in his book, — just as Judge Douglas says, 

15 after he had made his calculations and computa- 
tions, he took Toombs's statement. I have no doubt 
that after Judge Douglas had made his charge, he 
was as easily satisfied about its truth as the sur- 
veyor was of the drayman's statement of the dis- 

20 tance to the Plaza. Yet it is a fact that the man 
who put forth all that matter which Douglas 
deemed a " fatal blow " at State sovereignty, was 
elected by the Democrats as public printer. 

Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Douglas's 

25 speech of March 22, 1858, beginning about the 
middle of page 21, and reading to the bottom of 
page 24, and you will find the evidence on which I 
say that he did not make his charge against the 
editor of the " Union " alone. I -cannot stop to 

30 read it, but I will give it to the reporters. Judge 
Douglas said : 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 75 

" Mr. President, you here find several distinct propo- 
sitions advanced boldly by the Washington ' Union * 
editorially, and apparently authoritatively, and every 
man who questions any of them is denounced as an 
Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions 5 
are, first, that the primary object of all government at 
its original institution is the protection of persons and 
property; second, that the Constitution of the United 
States declares that the citizens of each State shall be 
entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in 10 
the several States ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State 
laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the 
citizens of one State from settling in another with their 
slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are 
direct violations of the original intention of the Govern- 15 
ment and Constitution of the United States ; and, fourth, 
that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern 
States was a gross outrage on the rights of property. 
inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of 
the owner. ^° 

" Remember that this article was published in the 
'Union' on the 17th of November, and on the i8th 
appeared the first article, giving the adhesion of the 
* Union ' to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in 
these words: 25 

" ' Kansas and her Constitution. — ^The vexed ques- 
tion is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point 
of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas 
affairs is over and gone — ' 

" And a column, nearly of the same sort. Then, y> 
when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which 
was put forth editorially in the 'Union.' What is it? 

"'Article 7, Section i. The right of property is 



^^ JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

before and higher than any constitutional sanctior 
and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave an 
its increase is the same and as invariable as the rigl, 
of the owner of any property whatever/ 

5 " Then in the schedule is a provision that the Cor 
stitution may be amended after 1864 by a two-third 
vote. 

" * But no alteration shall be made to affect the rigt 
of property in the ownership of slaves.' 

10 " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecomptoi 

Constitution that they are identical in spirit with thi 

authoritative article in the Washington * Union ' of th' 

day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. 

"When I saw that article in the 'Union' of the I7tl 

15 of November, followed by the glorification of the Le 
compton Constitution on the i8th of November, and thi; 
clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine tha 
a State has no right to prohibit slavery within it 
(imits, I saw that there was a fatal hlozu being strucl 

20 at the sovereignty of the States of this Union." 

Here he says, " Mr. President, you here find sev- 
eral distinct propositions advanced boldly, and ap 
parently authoritatively." By whose authority^ 
Judge Douglas? Again, he says in another place,! 

25 " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton 
Constitution that they are identical in spirit with 
this authoritative article." By whose authority? 
Who do you mean to say authorized the publica- 
tion of these articles ? He knows that the Washing- 

-^o ton " Union " is considered the organ of the 
Administration. / demand of Judge Douglas by 
whose authority he meant to say those articles were 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 77 

Dublished, if not by the authority of the President 
Df the United States and his Cabinet? I defy him 
;o show whom he referred to, if not to these high 
Functionaries in the Federal Government. More 
than this, he says the articles in that paper and the 5 
provisions of the Lecompton Constitution are " iden- 
tical," and, being identical, he argues that the 
luthors are co-operating and conspiring together. 
He does not use the word " conspiring," but what 
Dther construction can you put upon it? He winds 10 
ap with this : 

" When I saw that article in the ' Union * of the 17th 
3f November, followed by the glorification of the Le- 
;oinpton Constitution on the i8th of November, and this 
:lause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a 15 
State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, 
[ saw that there was a fatal hlozv being struck at the 
sovereignty of the States of the Union." 

I ask him if all this fuss was made over the 
editor of this newspaper. It would be a terribly 20 
" fatal blow " indeed which a single man could 
strike, when no President, no Cabinet officer, no 
member of Congress, was giving strength and effi- 
ciency to the moment. Out of respect to Judge 
Douglas's good sense I must believe he didn't man- ^5 
ufacture his idea of the "fatal " character of that 
blow out of such a miserable scapegrace as he 
represents that editor to be. But the Judge's eye 
is farther south now. Then, it was very peculiarly 
and decidedly north. His hope rested on the idea 3° 



78 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT 

of visiting the great " Black Republican " party., 
and making it the tail of his new kite. He knows 
he was then expecting from day to day to turn Re- 
publican, and place himself at the head of our 

5 organization. He has found that these despised 
** Black Republicans " estimate him by a standard 
which he has taught them none too well. Hence he 
is crawling back into his old camp, and you will 
find him eventually installed in full fellowship 

lo among those whom he was then battling, and with 
whom he now pretends to be at such fearful va- 
riance. [Loud applause, and cries of " Go on, go 
on."J I cannot, gentlemen; my time has expired. 



f iftb 5oint 2)ebate, at (Balesburab 

[October 7, 1858] 

MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 

Ladies and Gentlemen: Four years ago I 
appeared before the people of Knox County for the 5 
purpose of defending my poHtical action upon the 
Compromise Measures of 1850 and the passage of 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Those of you before me 
who were present then will remember that I vindi- 
cated myself for supporting those two measures by 10 
the fact that they rested upon the great fundamental 
principle that the people of each State and Territory 
of this Union have the right, and ought to be per- 
mitted to exercise the right, of regulating their own 
domestic concerns in their own way, subject to 15 
no other limitation or restriction than that which 
the Constitution of the United States imposes upon 
them. I then called upon the people of Illinois to 
decide whether that principle of self-government 
was right or wrong. If it was and is right, then 20 
the Compromise Measures of 1850 were right, and 
consequently, the Kansas and Nebraska bill, based 
upon the same principle, must necessarily have been 
right. 

The Kansas and Nebraska bill declared, in so 25 

79 



8o FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

many words, that it was the true intent and meaning 
of the Act not to legislate slavery into any State or 
Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu- 
5 late their domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States. For the last four years I have devoted all 
my energies, in private and public, to commend that 
principle to the American people. Whatever else 

1° may be said in condemnation or support of my polit- 
ical course, I apprehend that no honest man will 
doubt the fidelity with which, under all circum- 
stances, I have stood by it. 

During the last year a question arose in the Con- 

15 gress of the United States whether or not that prin- 
ciple would be violated by the admission of Kansas 
into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution. 
In my opinion, the attempt to force Kansas in under 
that constitution was a gross violation of the prin- 

20 ciple enunciated in the Compromise Measures of 
1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854, and 
therefore I led off in the fight against the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution, and conducted it until the effort 
to carry that constitution through Congress was 

25 abandoned. And I can appeal to all men, friends 
and foes, Democrats and Republicans, Northern 
men and Southern men, that during the whole of 
that fight I carried the banner of Popular Sover- 
eignty aloft, and never allowed it to trail in the 

30 dust, nor lowered my flag until victory perched upon 
our arms. When the Lecompton Constitution was 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 8i 

defeated, the question arose in the minds of those 
who had advocated it what they should next resort 
to in order to carry out their views. They devised 
a measure known as the Enghsh bill, and grantecF a 
general amnesty and political pardon to all men who 5 
had fought against the Lecompton Constitution, pro- 
vided they would support that bill. I for one did 
not choose to accept the pardon, or to avail myself 
of the amnesty granted on that condition. The fact 
that the supporters of Lecompton were willing to Jo 
forgive all differences of opinion at that time in the 
event those who opposed it favored the English 
bill, was an admission they did not think that oppo- 
sition to Lecompton impaired a man's standing in 
the Democratic party. Now, the question arises, 15 
what was that English bill which certain men are 
now attempting to make a test of political orthodoxy 
in this country ? It provided, in substance, that the 
Lecompton Constitution should be sent back to the 
people of Kansas for their adoption or rejection, at 20 
an election which was held in August last, and in 
case they refused admission under it, that Kansas 
should be kept out of the Union until she had 93,420 
inhabitants. I was in favor of sending the consti- 
tution back in order to enable the people to say 25 
whether or not it was their act and deed, and em- 
bodied their will; but the other proposition, that if 
they refused to come into the Union under it, they 
should be kept out until they had double or treble 
the population they then had, I never would sane- 3^ 
tion by my vote. The reason why I could not 



82 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

sanction It is to be found in the fact that by the 
EngHsh bill, if the people of Kansas had only agreed 
to become a slaveholding State under the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution, they could have done so with 
5 35,000 people, but if they insisted on being a Free 
State, as they had a right to do, then they were to 
be punished by being kept out of the Union until 
they had nearly three times that population. I then 
said in my place in the Senate, as I now say to you, 

lo that whenever Kansas has population enough for a 
Slave State she has population enough for a Free 
State. I have never yet given a vote, and I never 
intend to record one, making an odious and unjust 
distinction between the different States of this 

15 Union. I hold it to be a fundamental principle in 
our republican form of government that all the 
States of this Union, old and new, free and slave, 
stand on an exact equality. Equality among the 
different States is a cardinal principle on which all 

20 our institutions rest. Wherever, therefore, you 
make a discrimination, saying to a Slave State that 
it shall be admitted with 35,000 inhabitants, and a 
Free State that it shall not be admitted until it has 
93,000 or 100,000 inhabitants, you are throwing the 

25 whole weight of the Federal Government into the 
scale in favor of one class of States against the other. 
Nor would I on the other hand any sooner sanction 
the doctrine that a Free State could be admitted 
into the Union with. 35,000 people, while a Slave 

30 State was kept out until it had 93,000. I have 
always declared in the Senate my willingness, and 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 83 

I am willing now to adopt the rule, that no Terri- 
tory shall ever become a State until it has the 
requisite population for a member of Congress, 
according to the then existing ratio. But while I 
have always been, and am now, willing to adopt 5 
that general rule, I was not willing and would not 
consent to make an exception of Kansas, as a pun- 
ishment for her obstinacy in demanding the right 
to do as she pleased in the formation of her consti- 
tution. It is proper that I should remark here, that ^^ 
my opposition to the Lecompton Constitution did 
not rest upon the peculiar position taken by Kansas 
on the subject of slavery. I held then, and hold 
now, that if the people of Kansas want a Slave 
State, it is their right to make one, and be received 15 
into the Union under it; if, on the contrary, they 
want a Free State, it is their right to have it, and 
no man should ever oppose their admission because 
they ask it under the one or the other. I hold to 
that great principle of self-government which as- 20 
serts the right of every people to decide for them- 
selves the nature and character of the domestic 
institutions and fundamental law under which they 
are to live. 

The effort has been and is now being made in this ^^ 
State by certain postmasters and other Federal 
office-holders to make a test of faith on the support 
of the English bill. These men are now making 
speeches all over the State against me and in favor 
of Lincoln, either directly or indirectly, because I ^° 
would not sanction a discrimination between Slave 



84 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

and Free States by voting for the English bill. But 
while that bill is made a test in Illinois for the pur- 
pose of breaking up the Democratic organization 
in this State, how is it in the other States ? Go to 
5 Indiana, and there you find English himself, the 
author of the English bill, who is a candidate for 
re-election to Congress, has been forced by public 
opinion to abandon his own darling project, and to 
give a promise that he will vote for the admission 

lo of Kansas at once, whenever she forms a constitu- 
tion in pursuance of law, and ratifies it by a ma- 
jority vote of her people. Not only is this the case 
with English himself^ but I am informed that every 
Democratic candidate for Congress in Indiana takes 

15 the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find 
that Groesbeck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the 
other anti-Lecompton men who stood shoulder to 
shoulder with me against the- Lecompton Constitu- 
tion, but voted for the English bill, now repudiate 

20 it and take the same ground that I do on that ques- 
tion. So it is with the Joneses and others of Penn- 
sylvania, and so it is with every other Lecompton 
Democrat in the Free States. They now abandon 
even the English bill, and come back to th-e true 

25 platform which I proclaimed at the time in the 
Senate, and upon which the Democracy of Illinois 
now stand. And yet, notwithstanding the fact that 
every Lecompton and anti-Lecompton Democrat 
in the Free States has abandoned the English bill, 

30 you are told that it is to be made a test upon me, 
while the power and patronage of the Government 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 85 

are all exerted to elect men to Congress in the other 
States who occupy the same position with reference 
to it that I do. It seems that my poHtical ofifence 
consists in the fact that I first did not vote for the 
Enghsh bill, and thus pledge myself to keep Kansas 5 
out of the Union until she has a population of 
93,420, and then return home, violate that pledge, 
repudiate the bill, and take the opposite ground. If 
I had done this, perhaps the Administration would 
now be advocating my re-election, as it is that of the 10 
others who have pursued this course. I did not 
choose to give that pledge, for the reason that I 
did not intend to carry out that principle. I never 
will consent, for the sake of conciliating the frowns 
of power, to pledge myself to do that which I do 15 
not intend to perform. I now submit the question 
to you, as my constituency, whether I was not right, 
first, in resisting the adoption of the Lecompton 
Constitution, and, secondly, in resisting the English 
bill. I repeat that I opposed the Lecompton Consti- 20 
tution because it was not the act and deed of the 
people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. I 
denied the right of any power on earth, under our 
system of government, to force a constitution on 
an unwilling people. There was a time when some 25 
men could pretend to believe that the Lecompton 
Constitution embodied the will of the people of 
Kansas ; but that time has passed. The question 
was referred to the people of Kansas under the 
English bill last August, and then, at a fair election, 30 
they rejected the Lecompton Constitution by a vote 



36 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

of from eight to ten against it to one in its favor. 
Since it has been voted down by so overwhelming 
a majority, no man can pretend that it was the act 
and deed of that people. I submit the question to 
5 you whether or not, if it had not been for me, that 
constitution would have been crammed down the 
throats of the people of Kansas against their con- 
sent. While at least ninety-nine out of every hun- 
dred people here present agree that I was right in 

lo defeating that project, yet my enemies use the fact 
that I did defeat it by doing right, to break me down 
and put another man in the United States Senate in 
my place. The very men who acknowledge that I 
was right in defeating Lecompton now form an 

15 alliance with Federal office-holders, professed Le- 
compton men, to defeat me, because I did right. 
My political opponent, Mr. Lincoln, has no hope on 
earth, and has never dreamed that he had a chance 
of success, were it not for the aid that he is receiv- 

20 ing from Federal office-holders, who are using their 
influence and the patronage of the Government 
against me in revenge for my having defeated the 
Lecompton Constitution. What do you Republi- 
cans think of a political organization that will try 

25 to make an unholy and unnatural combination with 
its professed foes to beat a man merely because he 
has done right? You know such is the fact with 
regard to your own party. You know that the axe 
of decapitation is suspended over every man in 

30 office in Illmois, and the terror of proscription is 
threatened every Democrat by the present Adminis- 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 8; 

tration, unless he supports the Republican ticket in 
preference to my Democratic associates and myself. 
I could find an instance in the postmaster of the 
city of Galesburgh, and in every other postmaster in 
this vicinity, all of whom have been stricken down 5 
simply because they discharged the duties of their 
offices honestly, and supported the regular Demo- 
cratic ticket in this State in the right. The Repub- 
lican party is availing itself of unworthy means in 
the present contest to carry the election, because 10 
its leaders know that if they let this chance slip 
they will never have another, and their hopes of 
making this a Republican State will be blasted 
forever. 

Now, let me ask you whether the country has 15 
any interest in sustaining this organization, known 
as the Republican party. That party is unlike all 
other political organizations in this country. All 
other parties have been national in their character, 
— have avowed their principles alike in the Slave 20 
and Free States, in Kentucky as well as Illinois, in 
Louisiana as well as in Massachusetts. Such was 
the case with the old Whig party, and such was and 
is the case with the Democratic party. Whigs and 
Democrats could proclaim their principles boldly 25 
and fearlessly in the North and in the South, in the 
East and in the West, wherever the Constitution 
ruled, and the American flag waved over American 
soil. 

But now you have a sectional organization, a 3° 
party which appeals to the Northern section of the 



88 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH 

Union against the Southern, a party which appeals 
to Northern passion, Northern pride, Northern am- 
bition and Northern prejudices, against Southern 
people, the Southern States, and Southern institu- 

5 tions. The leaders of that party hope that they will ' 
be able to unite the Northern States in one great 
sectional party; and inasmuch as the North is the 
stronger section, that they will thus be enabled to 
out-vote, conquer, govern and control the South. 

lo Hence you find that they now make speeches advo- 
cating principles and measures which cannot be 
defended in any slaveholding State of this Union. 
Is there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who 
can travel into Kentucky and carry his principles 

15 with him across the Ohio? What Republican from 
Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without 
leaving his principles behind him when he crosses 
Mason and Dixon's line? Permit me to say to you 
in perfect good humor, but in all sincerity, that no 

20 political creed is somid which cannot be proclaimed 
fearlessly in every State of this Union where the 
Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 
Not only is this Republican party unable to pro- 
claim its principles alike in the North and South, 

25 in the Free States and in the Slave States, but it 
cannot even proclaim them in the same forms and 
give them the same strength and meaning in all 
parts of the same State. My friend Lincoln finds 
it extremely difficult to manage a debate in the 

30 central part of the State, where there is a mixture 
of men from the North and the South. In the ex- 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 89 

treme northern part of Illinois he can proclaim as 
bold and radical Abolitionism as ever Giddings, 
Love joy, or Garrison enunciated ; but when he gets 
down a little further south he claims that he is an old 
line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay, and declares 5 
that he still adheres to the old line Whig creed, and 
has nothing whatever to do with Abolitionism, or 
negro equality, or negro citizenship. I once before 
hinted this of Mr. Lincoln in a public speech, and 
at Charleston he defied me to vshow that there was 10 
any difference between his speeches in the North 
and in the South, and that they were not in strict 
harmony. I will now call your attention to two of 
them, and you can then say whether you would be 
apt to believe that the same man ever uttered both. 15 
In a speech in reply to me at Chicago in July last, 
Mr. Lincoln, in speaking of the equality of the 
negro with the white man, used the following lan- 
guage : 

"I should like to know, if, taking this old Declara- 02 
tion of Independence, which declares that all men are 
equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, 
where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean 
a negro, why may not another man say it does not 
mean another man? If the Declaration is not the 25 
truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it, 
and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it? If it is 
not true, let us tear it out." 

You find that Mr. Lincoln there proposed that if 
the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, 30 
declaring all men to be born equal, did not include 



90 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

the negro and put him on an equaHty with the 
white man, that we should take the statute book and 
tear it out. He there took the ground that the 
negro race is included in the Declaration of Inde- 
5 pendence as the equal of the white race, and that 
there could be no such thing as a distinction in the 
races, making one superior and the other inferior. 
I read now from the same speech: 

"My friends [he says], I have detained you about 
lo as long as I desire to do, and I have only to say, let us 
discard all this quibbling about this man and the other 
man, this race and that race and the other race being 
inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an 
inferior position, discarding our standard that we have 
15 left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as 
one people throughout this land, until we shall once 
more stand up declaring that all men are created 
equal." 

[" That's right," etc.] 

20 Yes, I have no doubt that you think it is right; 

but the Lincoln men down in Coles, Tazewell, and 

Sangamon counties do not think it* is right. In the 

conclusion of the same speech, talking to the 

^ Chicago Abolitionists, he said : " I leave you, hop- 

25 ing that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms 
until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men 
are created free and equal." [" Good, good."] 
Well, you say good to that, and you are going to 
vote for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I 

30 will not blame you for supporting him on that 



J 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 91 

ground, but I will show you, in immediate contrast 
with that doctrine, what Mr. Lincoln said down in 
Egypt in order to get votes in that locality, where 
they do not hold to such a doctrine. In a joint dis- 
cussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself, at Charles- 5 
ton, I think, on the i8th of last month, Mr. Lincoln, 
referring to this subject, used the following lan- 
guage: 

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, 
in favor of bringing about in any way the social and 10 
political equality of the white and black races; that I 
am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making 
voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying 
them to hold office, or having them to marry with white 
people. I will say, in addition, that there is a physical 15 
difference between the white and black races which, I 
suppose, will forever forbid the two races living 
together upon terms of social and political equality; and 
inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do 
remain together there must be the position of superior 20 
and inferior, that I as much as any other man am 
in favor of the superior position being assigned to the 
white man." 

[" Good for Lincoln."] 

Fellow-citizens, here you find men hurrahing for 25 
Lincoln, and saying that he did right, when in one 
part of the State he stood up for negro equality, 
and in another part, for political effect, discarded 
the doctrine, and declared that there always must 
be a superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up 30 
North are expected and required to vote for Lincoln 



92 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH ^ 

because he goes for the equality of the races, hold- 
ing that by the Declaration of Independence the 
white man and the negro were created equal, and 
endowed by the divine law with that equality, and 
5 down South he tells the old Whigs, the Kentuckians, 
Virginians, and Tennesseeans, that there is a phys- 
ical difference in the races, making one superior 
and the other inferior, and that he is in favor of 
maintaining the superiority of the white race over 

lo the negro. Now, how can you reconcile those two 
positions of Mr. Lincoln? He is to be voted for in 
the South as a pro-slavery man, and he is to be 
voted for in the North as an Abolitionist. Up here 
he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about a difference 

15 between the races, and says that we must " discard 
all quibbling about this race and that race and the 
other race being inferior, and therefore they must 
be placed in an inferior position." Down South he 
makes this " quibble " about this race and that race 

20 and the other race being inferior as the creed of his 
party, and declares that the negro can never be 
elevated to the position of the white man. You find 
that his political meetings are called by different 
names in different counties in the State. Here they 

25 are called Republican meetings ; but in old Tazewell, 
where Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did 
not address a Republican meeting, but " a grand 
rally of the Lincoln men." There are very few Re- 
publicans there, because Tazewell County is filled 

30 with old Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom 
are Whigs or Democrats; and if Mr. Lincoln had 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 93 

called an Abolition or Republican meeting" there, 
he would not get many votes. Go down into Egypt, 
and you find that he and his party are operating 
under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull 
has given them, in order that they may cheat the 5 
people. When I was down in Monroe County a 
few weeks ago, addressing the people, I saw hand- 
bills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was 
going to speak in behalf of Lincoln ; and what do 
you think the name of his party was there? Why, '^^ 
the "Free Democracy." Mr. Trumbull and Mr. 
Jehu Baker were announced to address the Free 
Democracy of Monroe County, and the bill was 
signed, " Many Free Democrats." The reason that 
Lincoln and his party adopted the name of " Free 15 
Democracy " down there was becaus<^ Monroe 
County has always been an old-fashioned Demo- 
cratic county, and hence it was necessary to make 
the people believe that they were Democrats, sym- 
pathized with them, arrd were fighting for Lincoln 2c 
as Democrats. Come up to Springfield, where Lin- 
coln now lives, and always has lived, and you find 
that the Convention of his party which assembled 
to nominate candidates for Legislature, who are 
expected to vote for him if elected, dare not adopt 25 
the name of Republican, but assembled under the 
title of " all opposed to the Democracy." Thus you 
find that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel through 
even one-half of the counties of this State, but that it 
changes its hues and becomes lighter and lighter as 30 
it travels from the extreme north, until it is nearly 



94 tltlH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

white when it reaches the extreme south end of the 
State. 

I ask you, my friends, why cannot RepubHcans 
avow their principles ahke everywhere? I would 
5 despise myself if I thought that I was procuring 
your votes by concealing my opinions, and by avow- 
ing one set of principles in one part of the State, 
and a different set in another part. If I do not 
truly and honorably represent your feelings and 

lo principles, then I ought not to be your Senator ; and 
I will never conceal my opinions, or modify or 
change them a hair's breadth, in order to get votes. 
I tell you that this Chicago doctrine of Lincoln's — 
declaring that the negro and the white man are 

15 made equal by the Declaration of Independence and 
by Divine Providence — is a monstrous heresy. 
The signers of the Declaration of Independence 
never dreamed of the negro when they were writ- 
ing that document. They referred to white men, 

20 to men of European birth, and European descent, 
when they declared the equality of all men. I see 
a gentleman there in the crowd shaking his head. 
Let me remind him that when Thomas Jefferson 
wrote that document, he was the owner, and so con- 

25 tinned until his death, of a large number of slaves. 
Did he intend to say in that Declaration that his 
negro slaves, which he held and treated as property, 
were created his equals by divine law, and that he 
was violating the law of God every day of his life 

30 by holding them as slaves? It must be borne in 
mind that when that Declaration was put forth, 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 95 

all of the thirteen Colonies were slaveholding 
Colonies, and every man who signed that in- 
strument represented a slaveholding constituency. 
Recollect, also, that no one of them emancipated his 
slaves, much less put them on an equality with 5 
himself, after he signed the Declaration. On the 
contrary, they all continued to hold their negroes 
as slaves during the Revolutionary War. Now, do 
you believe — are you willing to have it said — that 
every man who signed the Declaration of Inde- 10 
pendence declared the negro his equal, and then was 
hypocrite enough to continue to hold him as a slave, 
in violation of what he believed to be the divine 
law? And yet when you say that the Declaration 
of Independence includes the negro, you charge the 15 
signers of it with hypocrisy. 

I say to you, frankly, that in my opinion this 
government was made by our fathers on the white 
basis. It was made by white men for the benefit 
of white men and their posterity forever, and was 20 
intended to be administered by white men in all 
time to come. But while I hold that under our Con- 
stitution and political system the negro is not a 
citizen, cannot be a citizen, and ought not to be a 
citizen, it does not follow by any means that he 25 
should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow 
that the negro, as an inferior race, ought to possess 
every right, every privilege, every immunity, which 
he can safely exercise, consistent with the safety of 
the society in which he lives. Humanity requires, 30 
and Christianity commands, that you shall extend 



96 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

to every inferior being, and every dependent being, 
all the privileges, immunities, and advantages v^hich 
can be granted to them, consistent v^ith the safety 
of society. If you ask me the nature and extent 

5 of these privileges, I answer that that is a question 
w^hich the people of each State must decide for 
themselves. Illinois has decided that question for 
herself. We have said that in this State the negro 
shall not be a slave, nor shall he be a citizen. Ken- 

lo tucky holds a different doctrine. New York holds 
one different from either, and Maine one different 
from all. Virginia, in her policy on this question, 
differs in many respects from the others, and so on, 
until there are hardly two States whose policy is 

15 exactly alike in regard to the relation of the white 
man and the negro. Nor can you reconcile them 
and make them alike. Each State must do as it 
pleases. Illinois had as much right to adopt the 
policy which we have on that subject as Kentucky 

20 had to adopt a different policy. The great principle 
of this government is, that each State has the right 
to do as it pleases on all these questions, and no 
other State or power on earth has the right to in- 
terfere with us, or complain of us merely because 

25 our system differs from theirs. In the Compromise 
Measures of 1850, Mr. Clay declared that this great 
principle ought to exist in the Territories as well 
as in the States, and I reasserted his doctrine in the 
Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. 

30 But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand, 
and those who are determined to vote for him, no 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 97 

matter whether he is a pro-slavery man in the South 
and a negro equaUty advocate in the North, cannot 
be made to understand how it is that in a Territory 
the people can do as they please on the slavery ques- 
tion under the Dred Scott decision. Let us see 5 
whether I cannot explain it to the satisfaction of 
all impartial men. Chief Justice Taney has said, 
in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, that a negro 
slave, being property, stands on an equal footing 
with other property, and that the owner may carry jo 
them into the United States territory the same as he 
does other property. Suppose any two of you, 
neighbors, should conclude to go to Kansas, one 
carrying $100,000 worth of negro slaves, and the 
other $100,000 worth of mixed merchandise, includ- 15 
ing quantities of liquors. You both agree that under 
that decision you may carry your property to Kan- 
sas ; but when you get it there, the merchant who is 
possessed of the liquors is met by the Maine liquor 
law, which prohibits the sale or use of his property, 20 
and the owner of the slaves is met by equally un- 
friendly legislation, which makes his property 
worthless after he gets it there. What is the right 
to carry your property into the Territory worth to 
either, when unfriendly legislation in the Territory 25 
renders it worthless after you get it there? The 
slaveholder when he gets his slaves there finds that 
there is no local law to protect him in holding them, 
no slave code, no police regulation maintaining and 
supporting him in his right, and he discovers at 30 
once that the absence of such friendly legislation 



98 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH 

excludes his property from the Territory just as 
irresistibly as if there was a positive Constitutional 
prohibition excluding it. Thus you find it is with 
any kind of property in a Territory: it depends for 

5 its protection on the local and municipal law. If the 
people of a Territory want slavery, they make 
friendly legislation to introduce it; but if they do 
not want it, they withhold all protection from it, 
and then it cannot exist there. Such was the view 

lo taken on the subject by different Southern men 
when the Nebraska bill passed. See the speech of 
Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, the present Speaker of 
the House of Representatives of Congress, made at 
that time; and there you will find this whole doc- 

15 trine argued out at full length. Read the speeches 
of other Southern Congressmen, Senators and Rep- 
resentatives, made in 1854, and you will find that 
they took the same view of the subject as Mr. Orr, 
that slavery could never be forced on a people who 

20 did not want it./l hold that in this country there 
is no power on the face of the globe that can force 
any institution on an unwilling people. The great 
fundamental principle of our government is that 
the people of each State and each Territory shall 

25 be left perfectly free to decide for themselves what 
shall be the nature and character of their institu- 
tions. When this government was made, it was 
based on that principle. At the time of its formation 
there were twelve slaveholding States and one free 

30 State in this Union. Suppose this doctrine of Mr. 
Lincoln and the Republicans, of uniformity of laws 



MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 99 

of all the States on the subject of slavery, had pre- 
vailed; suppose Mr. Lincoln himself had been a 
member of the Convention which framed the Con- 
stitution, and that he had risen in that august body, 
and, addressing the father of his country, had said $ 
as he did at Springfield : " A house divided against 
itself cannot stand. I believe this government can- 
not endure permanently, half slave and half free. 
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not 
expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease lo 
to be divided. It will become all one thing or all 
the other." What do you think would have been 
the result? Suppose he had made that Convention 
believe that doctrine, and they had acted upon 
it, what do you think would have been the result? 15 
Do you believe that the one Free State would have 
outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus 
abolish slavery? On the contrary, would not the 
twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one 
Free State, and under his doctrine have fastened 20 
slavery by an irrevocable constitutional provision 
upon every inch of the American Republic? Thus 
you see that the doctrine he now advocates, if pro- 
claimed at the beginning of the government, would 
have established slavery everywhere throughout the 25 
American continent; and are you willing, now that 
we have the majority section, to exercise a power 
which we never would have submitted to when we 
were in the minority? If the Southern States had 
attempted to control our institutions, and make the 3° 
States all slave, when they had had the power, I ask 



iod FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

would you have submitted to it? If you would not, 
are you willing, now that we have become the 
strongest under that great principle of self-govern- 
ment that allows each State to do as it pleases, 

5 to attempt to control the Southern institutions? 
Then, my friends, I say to you that there is but one 
path of peace in this Republic, and that is to ad- 
minister this government as our fathers made it, 
divided into Free and Slave States, allowing each 

lo State to decide for itself whether it wants slavery 
or not. If Illinois will settle the slavery question 
for herself, and mind her own business and let her 
neighbors alone, we will be at peace with Kentucky 
and every other Southern State. If every other 

15 State in the Union will do the same, there will be 
peace between the North and the South, and in the 
whole Union. / 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 

My Fellow-Citizens: A very, large portion of 
20 the speech which Judge Douglas has addressed to 
you has previously been delivered and put in print. 
I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all. 
If I had not been interrupted, I was going to say 
that such an answer as I was able to make to a very 
25 large portion of it, had already been more than once 
made and published. There has been an oppor- 
tunity offered to the public to see our respective 
views upon the topics discussed in a large portion 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY loi 

of the speech which he has just deHvered. I make 
these remarks for the purpose of excusing myself 
for not passing over the entire ground that the 
Judge has just traversed. I however desire to take 
up some of the points that he has attended to, and 5 
ask your attention to them, and I shall follow him 
backwards upon some notes which I have taken, 
reversing the order, by beginning where he 
concluded. 

^The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of lo 
Independence, and insisted that negroes are not 
included in that Declaration ; and that it is a slander 
upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that 
negroes were meant therein ; and he asks you : Is it 
possible to believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned 15 
the immortal paper, could have supposed himself 
applying the language of that instrument to the 
negro race, and yet hold a portion of that race in 
slavery? Would he not at once have freed them? 
I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's 20 
speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not 
detain myself, or you, upon that point for any great 
length of time), that I believe the entire records of 
the world, from the date of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence up to within three years ago, may be 25 
searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one 
single man, that the negro was not included in the 
Declaration of Independence ; I think I may defy 
Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that 
Washington ever said so, that any President ever 30 
said so, that any member of Congress ever said so, 



102 FIFTH JOL\T DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

or that any living man upon the whole earth ever said 
so, until the necessities of the present policy of the 
Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent 
that affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas 
5 and his audience that while Mr. Jefferson was the 
owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking 
upon this very subject he used the strong language 
that '' he trembled for his country when he remem- 
bered that God was just"; and I will offer the 

lo highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if 

he will show me that he in all his life, ever uttered a 

sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. 4 

The next thing to which I will ask your attention 

is the Judge's comments upon the fact, as he 

15 assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public 
meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances 
Tazewell County as one of the places where the 
friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting and 
have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. 

20 He instances Monroe County as another, where 
Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the per- 
sons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of 
Lincoln, calling them the " Free Democracy." I 
have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he 

25 spoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, 
and I was there on Tuesday last ; and when he spoke 
there, he spoke under a call not venturing to use 
the word " Democrat." [Turning to Judge Doug- 
las.] What think you of this? 

30 So, again, there is another thing to which I would 
ask the Judge's attention upon this subject. In the 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY I03 

contest of 1856 his party delighted to call themselves 
together as the " National Democracy " ; but now, if 
there should be a notice put up anywhere for a 
meeting of the "National Democracy," Judge 
Douglas and his friends would not come. They 5 
would not suppose themselves invited. They would 
understand that it was a call for those hateful post- 
masters whom he talks about. 

Now a few words in regard to these extracts 
from speeches of mine which Judge Douglas has 10 
read to you, and which he supposes are in very 
great contrast to each other. Those speeches have 
been before the public for a considerable time, and 
if they have any inconsistency in them, if there is 
anv conflict in them, the public have been able to 15 
detect it. When the Judge says, in speaking on this 
subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the 
people of the northern end of the State, and of a 
different sort for the southern people, he assumes 
that I do not understand that my speeches will be 20 
put in print and read north and south. I knew all 
the while that the speech that I made at Chicago 
and the one I made at Jonesboro and the one at 
Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the 
reading and intelligent men in the community would 25 
see them and know all about my opinions. And I 
have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that 
there is any conflict whatever between them. But 
the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that 
there is a sort of inequality l;etween the white and 30 
black races which justifies us in making them slaves, 



104 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

we must then insist that there is a degree of equality 
that requires us to make them our wives. Now, I 
have all the while taken a broad distinction in regard 
to that matter; and that is all there is in these dif- 

5 ferent speeches which he arrays here ; and the entire 
reading of either of the speeches will show that that 
distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two parts 
of the same speech he could have got up as much of 
a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the 

lo while maintained that in so far as it should be 
insisted that there was an equality between the white 
and black races that should produce a perfect social 
and political equality, it was an impossibility. This 
you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it 

15 I have said that in their right to " life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness," as proclaimed in that old 
Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. And 
these declarations I have constantly made in refer- 
ence to the abstract moral question, to contemplate 

20 and consider when we are legislating about any 
new country which is not already cursed with the 
actual presence of the evil, — slavery. I have never 
manifested any impatience with the necessities that 
spring frorn the actual presence of black people 

25 amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery 
amongst us where it does already exist ; but I have 
insisted that, in legislating for new countries where 
it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that 
of moral and abstract right! With reference to 

3° those new countries, those maxims as to the right 
of a people to " Hfe, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 105 

piness " were the just rules to be constantly referred 
to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by 
men interested to misunderstand it. I take it that 
I have to address an intelligent and reading com- 
munity, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and 5 
then judge whether I advance improper or unsound 
views, or whether I advance hypocritical, and decep- 
tive, and contrary views in different portions of the 
country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such 
thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim k; 
that I am entirely free from all error in the 
opinions I advance. 

The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard 
to the distinction between his party and our party. 
His he assumes to be a national party, — ours a sec- 15 
tional one. He does this in asking the question 
whether this country has any interest in the main- 
tenance of the Republican party ? He assumes that 
our party is altogether sectional, that the party to 
which he adheres is national; and the argument is, 20 
that no party can be a rightful party — can be based 
upon rightful principles — unless it can announce 
its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge 
Douglas could not go into Russia and announce 
the doctrine of our national Democracy ; he could 25 
not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors 
and monarchies in Russia; and.it may be true of 
this country that in some places we may not be able 
to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth 
of Democracy, because there is a section so directly 30 
opposed to it that they will not tolerate us in doing 



io6 FIPTH JO TNT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doc 
rinc that in some places people won't let you pro 
claim it? Is that the way to test the truth of any 
doctrine? Why, I understood that at one time the 
5 people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas 
preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I com- 
mend to his consideration the question, whether he 
takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he 
wanted to preach. 

lo There is another thing to which I wish to ask 
attention for a little while on this occasion. What 
has always been the evidence brought forward to 
prove that the Republican party is a sectional party ? 
The main one was that in the Southern portion of 

15 the Union the people did not let the Republicans 
proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has 
been the main evidence brought forward, — that they 
had no supporters, or substantially none, in the 
Slave States. The South have not taken hold of 

20 our principles as we announce them ; nor docs Judge 
Douglas now grapple with those principles. W'e 
have a Republican State Platform, laid down in 
Springfield in June last, stating our position all the 
way through the questions before the country. We 

25 are now far advanced in this canvass. Judge Doug- 
las and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, 
and we have now for the fifth time met face to face 
in debate, and up to this day I have not found either 
Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of 

30 the Republican platform, or laying his finger upon 
anything in it that is wrong. I ask you all to 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 107 

recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the 
platform of principles to the fact that he can find 
people somewhere who will not allow us to announce 
those principles. If he had grccit c(jnfidence that 
our principles were wrong, he would take hold of 5 
them and demonstrate them to be wTong. But he 
does not do so. The only evidence he has of their 
being wrong is in the fact that there are people who 
won't allow us to preach them. I ask again, is that 
the way to test the soundness of a doctrine ? — 10 

I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule 
of nationality he is himself fast becoming sectional. 
I ask his attention to the fact that his speeches would 
not go as current now south of the Ohio River as 
they have formerly gone there. I ask his attention 15 
to the fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all 
the Democrats of the Free States are agreeing 
with him, while he omits to tell us that the Demo- 
crats of any Slave State agree with him. If he has 
not thought of this, I commend to his consideration 20 
the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, 
of his becoming sectional too. I see it rapidly 
approaching. Whatever may be the result of this 
ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and 
myself, I see the day rapidly approaching when this 25 
pill of sectionalism, which he has been thrusting 
down the throats of Republicans for years past, 
will be crowded down his own throat. 

Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in 
the beginning of his speech) about the Compromise 30 
of 1850 containing the principle of the Nebraska bill. 



io8 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH 

although I have often presented my views upon that 
subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I 
will, if you please, detain you a little with them. I 
have always maintained, so far as I was able, that 
5 there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska 
bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all, — nothing 
whatever. Where can you find the principle of the 
Nebraska bill in that Compromise? If anywhere, 
in the two pieces of the Compromise organizing the 

10 Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was 
expressly provided in these two Acts that when 
they came to be admitted into the Union, they 
should be admitted with or without slavery, as they 
should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing 

15 was said in either of those Acts as to what was to 
be done in relation to slavery during the Territorial 
existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay 
constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas 
recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion, 

20 the old Mexican laws would control that question 
during the Territorial existence, and that these old 
Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be 
used as a principle for declaration that during the 
Territorial existence as well as at the time of fram- 

25 ing the constitution, the people, if you please, might 
have slaves if they wanted them? I am not dis- 
cussing the question whether it is right or wrong; 
but how are the New Mexican and Utah laws pat- 
terns for the Nebraska bill? I maintain that the 

30 organization of Utah and New^ Mexico did not 
establish a general principle at all. It had no 



I 

MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY IC9 

feature of establishing a general principle. The 
Acts to which I have referred were a part of a gen- 
eral system of Compromises. They did not lay 
down what was proposed as a regular policy for the 
Territories, only an agreement in this particular case 5 
to do in that way, because other things were done 
that were to be a compensation for it. They were 
allowed to come in in that shape, because in another 
way it was paid for, — considering that as a part 
of that system of measures called the Compromise 10 
of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen Acts. 
It included the admission of California as a free 
State, which was kept out of the Union for half a 
year because it had formed a free constitution. It 
included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, 15 
which had been undefined before, which was in itself 
a slavery question ; for if you pushed the line farther 
west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave 
territory; while, if you drew the line toward the 
east, you narrowed the boundary and diminished 20 
the domain of slavery, and by so much increased 
free territory. It included the abolition of the slave 
trade in the District of Columbia. It included the 
passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. All these 
things were put together, and though passed in sep- 25 
arate Acts, were nevertheless in legislation (as the 
speeches at the time will show) made to depend 
upon each other. Each got votes, with the under- 
standing that the other measures were to pass, and 
by this system of Compromise, in that series of 30 
measures, those two bills — the New Mexico and 



no FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

Utah bills — were passed : and I say for that reason 
they could not be taken as models, framed upon 
their own intrinsic principle, for all future Terri- 
tories. And I have the evidence of this in the fact 
5 that Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or more than 
a year afterward, perhaps, when he first introduced 
bills for the purpose of framing new Territories, 
did not attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico 
and Utah; and even v^^hen he introduced this 

lo Nebraska bill, I think you will discover that he did 
not exactly follow them. But I do not wish to 
dwell at great length upon this branch of the dis- 
cussion. My own opinion is, that a thorough inves- 
tigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico 

15 and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise, 
and not designed as patterns for future Territorial 
legislation ; and that this Nebraska bill did not fol- 
low them as a pattern at all. 

The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed 

20 to making any odious distinctions between Free and 
Slave States. I am altogether unaware that the 
Republicans are in favor of making any odious dis- 
tinctions between the Free and Slave States. But 
there is still a difference, I think, between Judge 

25 Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose 
that the real difference between Judge Douglas and 
his friends, and the Republicans, on the contrary, is, 
that the Judge is not in favor of making any differ- 
ence between slavery and liberty ; that he is in favor 

3o of eradicating, or pressing out of view, the ques- 
tions of preference in this country for free or slave 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY in 

nstitutions; and consequently every sentiment he 
ittcrs discards the idea that there is any wrong in 
slavery. Everything that emanates from him or his 
:oadjutors in their course of policy carefully ex- 
:ludes the thought that there is anything wrong in 5 
slavery. All their arguments, if you will consider 
hem, will be seen to exclude the thought that there 
s anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will 
ake the Judge's speeches, and select the short and 
pointed sentences expressed by him, — as his decla- lo 
•ation that he *' don't care whether slavery is voted 
ip or down," you will see at once that this is per- 
iectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is 
vrong. If you do admit that it is wrong. Judge 
3ouglas cannot logically say he don't care whether 15 
I wrong is voted up or voted down/Judge Doug- 
as declares that if any community wants slavery 
hey have a right to have it. He can say that log- 
cally, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery ; 
)ut if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he can- 20 
lot logically say that anybody has a right to do 
A^rong. He insists that, upon the score of equality, 
;he owners of slaves and owners of property — of 
lorses and every other sort of property — should be 
dike, and hold them alike in a new Territory. 25 
riiat is perfectly logical if the two species of prop- 
erty are alike and are equally founded in right. But 
f you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot 
nstitute any equality between right and wrong. 
\nd from this difference of sentiment, — the belief 30 
)n the part of one that the institution is wrong, and 



112 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH' 

a policy springing from that belief which looks 
to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong ; and 
this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a 
policy sprung from that sentiment, which will tol- 

5 erate no idea of preventing the wrong from growing 
larger, and looks to there never being an end to it 
through all the existence of things, — arises the real 
difference between Judge Douglas and his friends 
on the one hand, and the Republicans on the other. 

lo Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in 
the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, 
social, and political evil, having due regard for its 
actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of 
getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all 

15 the constitutional obligations which have been 
thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy 
that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and 
looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may 
come to an end. y"^ 

20 Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth 
time, if not the seventh, in my presence, reiterated his 
charge of conspiracy or combination between the Na- 
tional Democrats and Republicans. What evidence 
Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, in- 

25 asmuch as he never favors us with any. I have said 
upon a former occasion, and I do not choose to sup- 
press it now, that I have no objection to the division 
in the Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was 
all his and their work. He had, I think, a great 

3^ deal more to do with the steps that led to the 
Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had; 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 113 

though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled 
over it, and their friends divided upon it. I am 
very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have 
no objection to the division; but I defy the Judge 
to show any evidence that I have in any way pro- 5 
moted that division, unless he insists on being a 
witness himself in merely saying so. I can give all 
fair friends of Judge Douglas here to understand 
exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to 
that division. Don't you remember how two years '^j 
ago the opponents of the Democratic party were 
divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess 
you do. Any Democrat who remembers that divi- 
sion will remember also that he was at the time 
very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all ^5 
there is between the National Democrats and the 
Republicans. What we now think of the two divi- 
sions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fre- 
mont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there 
is of it. 2c 

But if the Judge continues to put forward the 
declaration that there is an unholy and unnatural 
alliance between the Republicans and the National 
Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against 
receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon 25 
that subject. I want to call to the Judge's atten- 
tion an attack he made upon me in the first one of 
these debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In 
order to fix extreme Abolitionism upon me. Judge 
Douglas read a set of resolutions which he declared 3° 
had been passed by a Republican State Convention, 



114 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he 
declared I had taken part in that Convention. It 
turned out that although a few men calling them- 
selves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat 
5 at Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take 
any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or 
any such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So 
apparent had it become that the resolutions which 
he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, 

13 nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, 
that seven days afterward, at Freeport, Judge 
Douglas declared that he had been misled by 
Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the '' State Regis- 
ter," and Thomas L. Harris, member of Congress 

15 in that District, and he promised in that speech that 
when he went to Springfield he would investigate 
the matter. Since then Judge Douglas has been to 
Springfield, and I presume has made the investiga- 
tion ; but a month has passed since he has been there, 

20 and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the 
result of his investigation. I have waited as I think 
sufficient time for the report of that investigation, 
and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A 
fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the 

^5 perpetration of it was traced to the three, — Lan- 
phier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be 
narrowed in any way so as to exonerate any one of 
them, is what Judge Douglas's report would prob- 
ably show. 

^° It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge 
Douglas were published in the Illinois " State Reg- 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 115 

ister " on the i6th of October, 1854, as being the 
resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which 
had sat in that same month of October, at Spring- 
field. But it is also true that the publication in the 
" Register " was a forgery then, and the question 5 
is still behind, which of the three if not all of them, 
committed that forgery ? The idea that it was done 
by mistake, is absurd. The article in the Illinois 
" State Register " contains part of the real proceed- 
ings of that Springfield Convention, showing that 10 
the writer of the article had the real proceedings 
before him, and purposely threw out the genuine 
resolutions passed by the Convention, and fraudu- 
lently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as 
now, was the editor of the '' Register," so that there 15 
seems to be but little room for his escape. But then 
it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had less 
interest in the object of that forgery than either of 
the other two. The main object of that forgery at 
that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to 20 
Congress, and that object was known to be exceed- 
ingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris 
and Douglas were both in Springfield when the 
Convention was in session, and although they both 
left before the fraud appeared in the " Register," 25 
subsequent events show that they have both had 
their eyes fixed upon that Convention. 

The fraud having been apparently successful upon 
the occasion, both Harris and Douglas have more 
than once since then been attempting to put it to 30 
new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned 



ii6 FIFTH JOINT' DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

husband was brought home with his body full of 
eels, said when she was asked, what was to be 
done with him, " Take the eels out and set him 
again/' so Harris and Douglas have shown a dis- 
5 position to take the eels out of that stale fraud by 
which they gained Harris's election, and set the 
fraud again more than once. On the 9th of July, 
1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon 
Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United 

10 States, as will appear from the appendix of the 
*' Congressional Globe " of that date. 

On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again 
upon Norton in the House of Representatives, as 
will appear by the same documents, — the appendix 

15 to the " Congressional Globe " of that date. On the 
2 1 St of August last, all three — Lanphier, Douglas 
and Harris — reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It 
has been clung to and played out again and again 
as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. 

20 And now that it has been discovered publicly to be 
a fraud, we find that Judge Douglas manifests no 
surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of 
Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud 
from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are 

25 just as cozy now, and just as active in the con- 
coction of new schemes as they were before the 
general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is 
very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, 
and it is very unnatural if any one of them is inno- 

30 cent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of 
honor among thieves does not quite require him to 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 117 

take all upon himself, and consequently my friend 
Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a satisfac- 
tory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile 
the three are agreed that each is "a most honorable 
man." 5 

Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his 
truth and honor by a re-election to the United States 
Senate, and he makes and reports against me and 
against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges 
which we know to be utterly untrue, without for a 10 
moment seeming to think that this one unexplained 
fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the 
least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. 
He asks a re-election to the lower House of Con- 
gress without seeming to remember at all that he is 15 
involved in this dishonorable fraud ! The Illinois 
" State Register," edited by Lanphier, then, as now, 
the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, con- 
tinues to din the public ear with this assertion, with- 
out seeming to suspect that these assertions are at 20 
all lacking in title to belief. 

After all, the question still recurs upon us. How 
did that fraud originally get into the ** State Reg- 
ister " ? Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of 
that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be 25 
ignorant of how and by whom it was originally con- 
cocted. Can he be induced to tell, or, if he has told, 
can Judge Douglas be induced to tell how it orig- 
inally was concocted? It may be true that Lan- 
phier insists that the two men for whose benefit it 30 
was originally devised shall at least bear their share 



ii8 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

of it! How that is, I do not know, and while it 
remains unexplained, I hope to be pardoned if I 
insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making 
charges against Trumbull and myself is not quite 
5 sufficient evidence to establish them! 

While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint 
discussions, I answered certain interrogatories 
which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and 
then in turn propounded some to him, which he in a 

lo sort of way answered. The third one of these inter- 
rogatories I have with me, and wish now to make 
some comments upon it. It was in these words: 
'' If the Supreme Court of the United States shall 
decide that the States cannot exclude slavery from 

15 their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, 
adhering to, and following such decision as a rule 
of political action ? " 

To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no 
answer in any just sense of the word. He con- 

20 tented himself with sneering at the thought that 
it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make 
such a decision. He sneered at me for propound- 
ing the interrogatory. I had not propounded it 
without some reflection, and I wish now to address 

25 to this audience some remarks upon it. 

In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe 
it is, of the Constitution of the United States, we 
find the following language : " This Constitution 
and the laws of the United States which shall be 

.p made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or 
which shall be made, under the authority of the 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 119 

United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; 
and the judges in every State diall be bound 
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any 
State to the contrary notwithstanding." 

The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed 5 
into the sentence which I will now read : " Now, as 
we have already said in an earlier part of this opin- 
ion, upon a different point, the right of property in 
a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the 
Constitution." I repeat it, '' The right of property 10 
in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the 
Constitution!'' What is it to be ''affirmed'' in the 
Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, — so 
made that it cannot be separated from the Consti- 
tution without breaking the Constitution ; durable as 15 
the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, 
remembering the provision of the Constitution which 
I have read; affirming that that instrument is the 
supreme law of the land; that the Judges of every 
State shall be bound by it, any law or constitution 20 
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; that 
the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that 
Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be 
separated from it without breaking it ; • durable as 
the instrument; part of the instrument; — what fol- 25 
lows as a short and even syllogistic argument from 
it ? I think it follows, and I submit to the consid- 
eration of men capable of arguing, whether as I 
state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any 
fault in it? 3° 

Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State 



120 FIFTH JOIXT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed 
in the Constitution of the United States. 

The right of property in a slave is distinctly and 
expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United 
5 States. 

Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of 
any State can destroy the right of property i« a 
slave. 

I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that' 

lo argument; assuming the truth of the premises, the 
conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to 
understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault 
in it as I think, but the fault is not in the reason- 
ing; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of the 

15 premises. I believe that the right of property in 
a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in 
the Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. 
I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates 
of that decision may search in vain for the place in 

20 the Constitution where the right of a slave is dis- 
tinctly and expressly affirmed. I say, therefore, 
that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. 
But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with 
the Supreme Court who pronounced it. They are 

25 estopped from denying it, and being estopped from 
denying it, the conclusion follows that, the Consti- 
tution of the United States being the supreme law, 
no constitution or law can interfere with it. It 
being affirmed in the decision that the right of 

30 property in a slave is distinctly and expressly 
affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inev- 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 121 

itably follows that no State law or constitution can 
destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and 
to all others that I think it will take a better answer 
than a sneer to show that those who have said 
that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and 5 
expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are not pre- 
pared to show that no constitution or law can de- 
stroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far 
better argument than a mere sneer to show to the 
minds of intelligent men that whoever has so said, is 10 
not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far 
advanced as to justify it, to say the other. This 
is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very 
humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred 
Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made 15 
in its present form if the party that made it had not 
been sustained previously by the elections. My 
own opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision, 
deciding against the right of the people of the 
States to exclude slavery, will never be made, if 20 
that party is not sustained by the elections. I 
believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as 
to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sus- 
tained. I have said, upon a former occasion, and 
I repeat it now, that the course of argument that 25 
Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I 
charge not his motives in this), is preparing the 
public mind for that new Dred Scott decision. I 
have asked him again to point out to me the reasons 
for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision 30 
as it is. I have turned his attention to the fact 



122 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

that General Jackson differed with him in regard 
to the political obligation of a Supreme Court 
decision. I have asked his attention to the fact 
that Jefferson differed with him in regard to the 

5 political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. 
Jefferson said that " Judges are as honest as other 
men, and not more so." And he said, substantially, 
that " whenever a free people should give up in 
absolute submission to any department of govern- 

lo ment, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, 
their liberties were gone." I have asked his atten- 
tion to the fact that the Cincinnati platform upon 
which he says he stands, disregards a time-honored 
decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power 

15 of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have 
asked his attention to the fact that he himself was 
one of the most active instruments at one time in 
breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of 
Illinois, because it had made a decision distasteful 

20 to him, — a struggle ending in the remarkable cir- 
cumstance of his sitting down as one of the new 
Judges who were to overslaugh that decision ; get- 
ting his title of Judge in that very way. 

So far in this controversy I can get no answer 

25 at all from Judge Douglas upon these subjects. 
Not one can I get from him, except that he swells 
himself up and says, " All of us who stand by the 
decision of the Supreme Court are the friends of 
the Constitution ; all you fellows that dare question 

30 it in any way, are the enemies of the Constitution." 
Now, in this very devoted adherence to this deci- 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 123 

?ion, in opposition to all the great political leaders 
whom he has recognized as leaders, in opposition 
to his former self and history, there is something 
very marked. And the manner in which he adheres 
to it, — not as being right upon the merits, as he con- 5 
ceives (because he did not discuss that at all), 
but as being absolutely obligatory upon everyone, 
simply because of the source from whence it 
comes, — as that which no man can gainsay, what- 
ever it may be; this is another marked feature of 10 
his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this 
respect that it commits him to the next decision, 
whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, 
since he does not investigate it, and won't inquire 
whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes 15 
the next one without inquiring whether it is right 
or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so 
doing prepares the public mind to take the next 
decision when it comes without any inquiry. In 
this I think I argue fairly (without questioning 20 
motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeni- 
ously and powerfully preparing the public mind to 
take that decision when it comes; and not only so, 
but he is doing it in various other ways. In these 
general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that 25 
he " don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted 
down " ; that '* whoever wants slavery has a right to 
have it " ; that " upon principles of equality it should 
be allowed to go everywhere " ; that " there is no 
inconsistency between free and slave institutions." 30 
In this he is also preparing (whether purposely or 



124 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH ^ 

not) the way for making the institution of slavery- 
national! I repeat again, for I wish no misunder- 
standing, that I do not charge that he means it so ; 
but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you were 
5 going to get the best instrument you could, and then 
set it to work in the most ingenious way, to prepare 
the public mind for this movement, operating in 
the Free States, where there is now an abhorrence 
of the institution of slavery, could you find an 

lo instrument so capable of doing it as Judge Doug- 
las, or one employed in so apt a way to do it ? 

I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, 
that Mr. Clay, when he was once answering an ob- 
jection to the Colonization Society, that it had a 

15 tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, 
said that ** those who would repress all tendencies 
to liberty and ultimate emancipation must do more 
than put down the benevolent efforts of the Coloni- 
zation Society, — they must go back to the era of our 

20 liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon 
that thunders its annual joyous return ; they must 
blot out the moral lights around us ; they must pene- 
trate the human soul, and eradicate the light of 
reason and the love of liberty ! " And I do think — 

25 I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion — 
that Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches 
that the negro has no share, humble though it may 
be, in the Declaration of Independence, is going 
back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, 

30 so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that 
thunders its annual joyous return ; that he is blow- 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 125 

ing out the moral lights around us, when he con- 
tends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold 
them; that he is penetrating, so far as lies in his 
power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of 
reason and the love of liberty, when he is in every 5 
possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast 
influence, for making the institution of slavery per- 
petual and national. 

There is, my friends, only one other point to 
which I will call your attenton for the remaining 10 
time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall not 
occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point 
may not take me clear through it. 

Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas 
propounded to me at Freeport, there was one in 15 
about this language : " Are you opposed to the ac- 
quisition of any further territory to the United 
States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited there- 
in ? " I answered, as I thought, in this way, that I 
am not generally opposed to the acquisition of addi- 20 
tional territory, and that I would support a proposi- 
tion for the acquisition of additional territory ac- 
cording as my supporting it was or was not calcu- 
lated to aggravate this slavery question amongst 
us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another in- 25 
terrogatory, which was correlative to that : " Are 
you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in dis- 
regard of how it may affect us upon the slavery 
question ? " Judge Douglas answered, — that is, in 
his own way he answered it. I believe that, al- 30 
though he took a good many words to answer it, it 



126 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH • 

was a little more fully answered than any other. 
The substance of his answer was, that this country 
would continue to expand ; that it would need addi- 
tional territory ; that it was as absurd to suppose that 
5 we could continue upon our present territory, en- 
larging in population as we are, as it would be to 
hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to 
grow to man's size without bursting the hoops. I 
believe it was something like that. Consequently, 

lo he was in favor of the acquisition of further terri- 
tory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how 
it might affect the slavery question. I do not say 
this as giving his exact language, but he said so 
substantially; and he would leave the question of 

15 slavery where the territory was acquired, to be set- 
tled by the people of the acquired territory. [" That's 
the doctrine."] May be it is; let us consider that 
for a while. This will probably, in the run of 
things, become one of the concrete manifestations of 

20 this sL very question. If Judge Douglas's policy 
upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled 
down, until all opposition is crushed out, the next 
thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, 
an invasion of the rich lands of South America, 

25 then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of 
which promises additional slave-fields. And this 
question is to be left to the people of those countries 
for settlement. When we get Mexico, I don't know 
whether the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican 

30 people that we get with it settling that question for 
themselves and all others; because we know the 



MR LINCOLN'S REPLY 127 

judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I under- 
stand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly 
a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not 
more than one person there out of eight who is 
pure white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous 5 
declaration that when we get Mexico or any con- 
siderable portion of it, that he will be in favor of 
these mongrels settling the question, which would 
bring him somewhat into collision with his horror 
of an inferior race. ^o 

It is to be remembered, though, that this power of 
acquiring additional territory is a power confided to 
the President and the Senate of the United States. 
It is a power not under the control of the representa- 
tives of the people any further than they, the Presi- 15 
dent and the Senate, can be considered the repre- 
sentatives of the people. Let me illustrate that by a 
case we have in our history. When we acquired 
the territory from Mexico in the Mexican war, the 
House of Representatives, composed of the imme- 20 
diate representatives of the people, all the time in- 
sisted that the territory thus to be acquired should 
be brought in upon condition that slavery should 
be forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and 
in the language that slavery had been prohibited 25 
from coming into this country. That was insisted 
upon constantly and never failed to call forth an 
assurance that any territory thus acquired should 
have that prohibition in it, so far as the House of 
Representatives was concerned. But at last the 30 
President and Senate acquired the territory with- 



128 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

out asking the House of Representatives anything 
about it, and took it without that prohibition. They 
have the power of acquiring territory without the 
immediate representatives of the people being called 
5 upon to say anything about it, and thus furnishing 
a very apt and powerful means of bringing new 
territory into the Union, and, when it is once 
brought into the country, involving us anew in this 
slavery agitation. It is, therefore, as I think, a very 

lo important question for the consideration of the 
American people, whether the policy of bringing in 
additional territory, without considering at all how 
it will operate upon the safety of the Union in refer- 
ence to this one great disturbing element in our na- 

15 tional politics, shall be adopted as the policy of the 
country. You will bear in mind that it is to be ac- 
quired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it 
is needed, and the indefinite part of this proposition 
is that we have only Judge Douglas and his class of 

20 men to decide how fast it is needed. We have no 
clear and certain way of determining or demonstrat- 
ing how fast territory is needed by the necessities 
of the country. Whoever wants to go out filibuster- 
ing, then, thinks that more territory is needed. 

25 Whoever wants wider slave-fields, feels sure that 
some additional territory is needed as slave-territory. 
Then it is as easy to show the necessity of additional 
slave-territory as it is to assert anything that is in- 
capable of absolute demonstration. Whatever mo- 

30 tive a man or set of men may have for making 
annexation of property or territory, it is very easy 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 129 

to assert, but much less easy to disprove, that It is 
necessary for the wants of the country. 

And now it only remains for me to say that I 
think it is a very grave question for the people of 
this Union to consider, whether, in view of the fact 5 
that this slavery question has been the only one that 
has ever endangered our Republican institutions, 
the only one that has ever threatened or menaced a 
dissolution of the Union, that has ever disturbed us 
in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity 10 
of our liberty, — in view of these facts, I think it is 
an exceedingly interesting and important question 
for this people to consider whether we shall engage 
in the policy of acquiring additional territory, dis- 
carding altogether from our consideration, while 15 
obtaining new territory, the question how it may 
affect us in regard to this, the only endangering ele- 
ment to our liberties and national greatness. The 
Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my answer 
to his question, have expressed mine. I think it 20 
will become an important and practical question. 
Our views are before the public. I am willing and 
anxious that they should consider them fully; that 
they should turn it about and consider the impor- 
tance of the question, and arrive at a just conclusion 25 
as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of 
this Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to 
consider whether it will add to the disturbance that 
is existing amongst us, — whether it will add to the 
one only danger that has ever threatened the per- 30 
petuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think 



130 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

it is extremely important that they shall decide, and 
rightly decide, that question before entering upon 
that policy. 

And now, my friends, having said the little I wish 

5 to say upon this head, whether I have occupied the 
whole of the remnant of my time or not, I believe 
I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat 
•it fully, without transcending my time, which I 
would not for a moment think of doing. I give way 

^^ to Judge Douglas. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 

Gentlemen: The highest compliment you can 
pay me during the brief half-hour that I have to 
conclude is by observing a strict silence. I desire 

^5 to be heard rather than to be applauded. 

The first criticism that Mr. Lincoln makes on my 
speech was that it was in substance what I have said 
everywhere else in the State where I have addressed 
the people. I wish I could say the same of his 

2o speech. Why, the reason I complain of him is be- 
cause he makes one speech north, and another south. 
Because he has one set of sentiments for the Aboli- 
tion counties, and another set for the counties op- 
posed to Abolitionism. My point of complaint 

25 against him is that I cannot induce him to hold up 
the same standard, to carry the same flag, in all 
parts of the State. He does not pretend, and no 
other man will, that I have one set of principles for 



MR, DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 131 

Galesburgh, and another for Charleston. He does 
not pretend that I hold to one doctrine in Chicago, 
and an opposite one in Jonesboro. I have proved 
that he has a different set of principles for each of 
these localities. All I asked of him was that he 5 
should deliver the speech that he has made here to- 
day in Coles County instead of in old Knox. It 
would have settled the question between us in that 
doubtful county. Here I understand him to reaffirm 
the doctrine of negro equality, and to assert that by ic 
the Declaration of Independence the negro is de- 
clared equal to the white man. He tells you to-day 
that the negro was included in the Declaration of 
Independence when it asserted that all men were 
created equal. [" We believe it."] Very well. 15 

Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day, as he did at Chicago, 
that the negro was included in that clause of the 
Declaration of Independence which says that all 
men were created equal and endowed by the Creator 
with certain inalienable rights, among which are 20 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the 
negro was made his equal and mine, if that equality 
was established by divine law, and was the negro's 
inalienable right, how came he to say at Charleston 
to the Kentuckians residing in that section of our 25 
State that the negro was physically inferior to the 
white man, belonged to an inferior race, and he was 
for keeping him in that inferior condition. There 
he gave the people to understand that there was no 
moral question involved, because, the inferiority be- 30 
ing established, it was only a question of degree, and 



132 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GAEES BURGH 

not a question of right; here, to-day, instead of 
making it a question of degree, he makes it a moral 
question, says that it is a great crime to hold the 
negro in that inferior condition. [" He's right."] 
5 Is he right now, or was he right in Charleston? 
['* Both."] He is right, then, sir, in your estimation, 
not because he is consistent, but because he can trim 
his principles any way, in any section, so as to se- 
cure votes. All I desire of him is that he will 

lo declare the same principles in the south that he does 
in the north. 

But did you notice how he answered my position 
that a man should hold the same doctrines through- 
out the length and breadth of this Republic ? He said, 

^5 " Would Judge Douglas go to Russia and proclaim 
the same principles he does here ? " I would remind 
him that Russia is not under the American Consti- 
tution. If Russia was a part of the American Re- 
public, under our Federal Constitution, and I was 

2o sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain 
the same doctrine in Russia that I do in Illinois. 
The slaveholding States are governed by the same 
Federal Constitution as ourselves, and hence a 
man's principles, in order to be in harmony with the 

25 Constitution, must be the same in the South as they 
are in the North, the same in the Free States as they 
are in the Slave States. Whenever a man advocates 
one set of principles in one section, and another set 
in another section, his opinions are in violation of 

30 the spirit of the Constitution which he has sworn to 
support. When Mr. Lincoln went to Congress in 



MR, DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 133 

1847, ^"d, laying his hand upon the Holy Evan- 
gelists, made a solemn vow, in the presence of high 
Heaven, that he would be faithful to the Constitu- 
tion, what did he mean, — the Constitution as he ex- 
pounds it in Galesburgh, or the Constitution as he 5 
expounds it in Charleston? 

Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to the 
circumstance that at Ottawa I read a series of reso- 
lutions as having been adopted at Springfield, in this 
State, on the 4th or 5th of October, 1854, which 10 
happened not to have been adopted there. He has 
used hard names ; has dared to talk about fraud, 
about forgery, and has insinuated that there was a 
conspiracy between Mr. Lanphier, Mr. Harris, and 
myself to perpetrate a forgery. Now, bear in mind 13 
that he does not deny that these resolutions were 
adopted in a majority of all the Republican counties 
of this State in that year ; he does not deny that they 
were declared to be the platform of this Republican 
party in the first Congressional District, in the 2c 
second, in the third, and in many counties of the 
fourth, and that they thus became the platform of 
his party in a majority of the counties upon which 
he now relies for support ; he does not deny the 
truthfulness of the resolutions, but takes exception 25 
to the spot on which they were adopted. He takes 
to himself great merit because he thinks they were 
not adopted on the right spot for me to use them 
against him, just as he was very severe in Congress 
upon the Government of his country when he 30 
thought that he had discovered that the Mexican 



134 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH 

war was not begun in the right spot, and was there 
fore unjust. He tries very hard to make out that 
there is something very extraordinary in the place 
where the thing was done, and not in the thing itself. 
5 I never believed before that Abraham Lincoln would 
be guilty of what he has done this day in regard to 
those resolutions. In the first place, the moment it 
was intimated to me that they had been adopted at 
Aurora and Rockford instead of Springfield, I did 

lo not wait for him to call my attention to the fact, 
but led off, and explained in my first meeting after 
the Ottawa debate what the mistake was, and how it 
had been made. I supposed that for an honest man, 
conscious of his own rectitude, that explanation 

15 would be sufficient. I did not wait for him, after 
the mistake was made, to call my attention to it, but 
frankly explained it at once as an honest man would. 
I also gave the authority on which I had stated that 
these resolutions were adopted by the Springfield 

2c Republican Convention; that I had seen them 
quoted by Major Harris in a debate in Congress, 
as having been adopted by the first Republican State 
Convention in Illinois, and that I had written to 
him and asked him for the authority as to the time 

25 and place of their adoption ; that. Major Harris 
being extremely ill, Charles H. Lanphier had writ- 
ten to me, for him, that they were adopted at 
Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854, and had 
sent me a copy of the Springfield paper containing 

3^ them. I read them from the newspaper just as INIr. 
Lincoln reads the proceedings of meetings held 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 135 

years ago from the newspapers. After giving that 
explanation, I did not think there was an honest 
man in the State of IlHnois who doubted that I had 
been led into the error, if it was such, innocently, 
in the way I detailed ; and I will now say that I do t 
not now believe that there is an honest man on the 
face of the globe who will not regard with abhor- 
rence and disgust Mr. Lincoln's insinuations of my 
complicity in that forgery, if it was a forgery. Does 
Mr. Lincoln wish to push these things to the point 10 
of personal difficulties here? I commenced this 
contest by treating him courteously and kindly; I 
always spoke of him in words of respect; and in 
return he has sought, and is now seeking to divert 
public attention from the enormity of his revolution- ^5 
ary principles by impeaching men's sincerity and 
integrity, and inviting personal quarrels. 

I desired to conduct this contest with him like a 
gentleman ; but I spurn the insinuation of complicity 
and fraud made upon the simple circumstance of an 20 
editor of a newspaper having made a mistake as to 
the place where a thing was done, but not as to the 
thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of 
this Republican party of Mr. Lincoln's of that year. 
They were adopted in a majority of the Republican 25 
counties in the State ; and when I asked him at 
Ottawa whether they formed the platform upon 
which he stood, he did not answer, and I could not 
get an answer out of him. He then thought, as I 
thought, that those resolutions wTre adopted at the 30 
Springfield Convention, but e.^ciu^cvi himself by say- 



136 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

ing that he was not there when they were adopted, 
but had gone to Tazewell court in order to avoid 
being present at the Convention. He saw them pub- 
lished as having been adopted at Springfield, and 
5 so did I, and he knew that if there was a mistake 
in regard to them, that I had nothing under heaven 
to do with it. Besides, you find that in all these 
northern counties where the Republican candidates 
are running pledged to him, that the Conventions 

lo which nominated them adopted that identical plat- 
form. 

One cardinal point in that platform which he 
shrinks from is this: that there shall be no more 
Slave States admitted into the Union, even if the 

15 people want them. Love joy stands pledged against 
the admission of any more Slave States. [" Right, 
so do we."] So do you, you say. Farnsworth 
stands pledged against the admission of any more 
Slave States. Washburne stands pledged the same 

20 way. The candidate for the Legislature who is run- 
ning on Lincoln's ticket in Henderson and Warren, 
stands committed by his vote in the Legislature to 
the same thing ; and I am informed, but do not know 
of the fact, that your candidate here is also so 

25 pledged. ["Hurrah for him! good!"] Now, you 
Republicans all hurrah for him, and for the doctrine 
of no more Slave States. And yet Lincoln tells 
you that his conscience will not permit him to sane- | 
tion that doctrine, and complains because the reso- '^ 

30 lutions I read at Ottawa made him, as a member of 
the party, responsible for sanctioning the dggtrine 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 137 

of no more Slave States. You are one way, you 
confess, and he is, or pretends to be, the other ; and 
yet you are both governed by principle in supporting 
one another. If it be true, as I have shown it is, 
that the whole Republican party in the northern part 5 
of the State stands committed to the doctrine of 
no more Slave States, and that this same doctrine is 
repudiated by the Republicans in the other part of 
the State, I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln and his 
party do not present the case which he cited from 10 
the Scriptures, of a house divided against itself 
which cannot stand ! I desire to know what are Mr. 
Lincoln's principles and the principles of his party ? 
I hold, and the party wath which I am identified 
hold, that the people of each State, old and new, 15 
have the right to decide the slavery question for 
themselves; and when I used the remark that I 
did not care whether slavery was voted up or down, 
I used it in the connection that I was for allowing 
Kansas to do just as she pleased on the slavery ques- 20 
tion. I said that I did not care whether they voted 
slavery up or down, because they had the right to 
do as they pleased on the question, and therefore 
my action would not be controlled by any such con- 
sideration. Why cannot Abraham Lincoln, and the 25 
party with which he acts, speak out their principles 
so that they may be understood? Why do they 
claim to be one thing in one part of the State, and 
another in the other part? Whenever I allude to 
the Abolition doctrines, which he considers a slander 30 
to be charged with being in favor of, you all in- 



138 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

dorse them, and hurrah for them, not knowing 
that your candidate is ashamed to acknowledge 
them. 

I have a few words to say upon the Dred Scott 
5 decision, which has troubled the brain of Mr. Lin- 
coln so much. He insists that that decision would 
carry slavery into the Free States, notwithstanding 
that the decision says directly the opposite, and 
goes into a long argument to make you believe that 

lo I am in favor of, and would sanction, the doctrine 
that would allow slaves to be brought here and held 
as slaves contrary to our Constitution and laws, 
Mr. Lincoln knew better when he asserted this ; he 
knew that one newspaper, and, so far as is within 

^5 my knowledge, but one, ever asserted that doctrine,, 
and that I was the first man in either House of 
Congress that read that article in debate, and de- 
nounced it on the floor of the Senate as revolution- 
ary. When the Washington " Union " on the 17th 

20 of last November, published an article to that effect, 
I branded it at once, and denounced it; and hence 
the " Union " has been pursuing me ever since. Mr. 
Toombs, of Georgia, replied to me, and said that 
there was not a man in any of the Slave States 

25 south of the Potomac River that held any such doc- 
trine. Mr. Lincoln knows that there is not a mem- 
ber of the Supreme Court who holds that doctrine ; 
he knows that every one of them, as shown by their 
opinions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt, 

30 then, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute 
among the people ? It looks as if there was an effort 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 139 

being made to destroy public confidence in the high- 
est judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose he succeeds 
in destroying public confidence in the court, so that 
the people will not respect its decisions, but will 
feel at liberty to disregard them and resist the laws 5 
of the land, what will he have gained? He will 
have changed the government from one of laws 
into that of a mob, in which the strong arm of 
violence will be substituted for the decisions of 
the courts of justice. He complains because I did i^ 
not go into an argument reviewing Chief Justice 
Taney's opinion, and the other opinions of the dif- 
ferent judges, to determine whether their reasoning 
is right or wrong on the questions of law. What use 
would that be? He wants to take an appeal from 15 
the Supreme Court to this meeting, to determine 
whether the questions of law were decided properly. 
He is going to appeal from the Supreme Court of 
the United States to every town meeting, in the 
hope that he can excite a prejudice against that 20 
court, and on the wave of that prejudice ride into 
the Senate of the United States, when he could not 
get there on his own principles or his own merits. 
Suppose he should succeed in getting into the 
Senate of the United States, what then will he have 25 
to do with the decision of the Supreme Court in 
the Dred Scott case? Can he reverse that decision 
when he gets there ? Can he act upon it ? Has the 
Senate any right to reverse it or revise it? He will 
not pretend that it has. Then why drag the matter 30 
into this contest, unless for the purpose of making 



140 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH 

a false issue, by which he can direct pubHc atten- 
tion from the real issue. 

He has cited General Jackson in justification of 
the war he is making on the decision of the court. 

5 Mr. Lincoln misunderstands the history of the 
country if he believes there is any parallel in the 
two cases. It is true that the Supreme Court once 
decided that if a Bank of the United States was 
a necessary fiscal agent of the government, it was 

lo constitutional, and if not, that it was unconstitu- 
tional, and also, that whether or not it was neces- 
sary for that purpose, was a political question for 
Congress, and not a judicial one for the courts to 
determine. Hence the court would not determine the 

15 bank unconstitutional. Jackson respected the de- 
cision, obeyed the law, executed it, and carried it 
into effect during its existence ; but after the charter 
of the bank expired, and a proposition was made 
to create a new bank, General Jackson said, " It 

20 is unnecessary and improper, and therefore I am 
against it on constitutional grounds as well as those 
of expediency." Is Congress bound to pass every 
Act that is constitutional? Why, there are a thou- 
sand things that are constitutional, but yet are in- 

25 expedient and unnecessary, and you surely would 
not vote for them merely because you had the right 
to? And because General Jackson would not do a 
thing which he had a right to do, but did not deem 
expedient or proper, Mr. Lincoln is going to justify 

30 himself in doing that which he has no right to do. 
I ask him whether he i§ not bound to respect and 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 141 

obey the decisions of the Supreme Court as well 
as I? The Constitution has created that court to 
decide all constitutional questions in the last resort ; 
and when such decisions have been made, they be- 
come the law of the land, and you, and he, and my- 5 
self, and every other good citizen, are bound by 
them. Yet he argues that I am bound by their 
decisions, and he is not. He says that their de- 
cisions are binding on Democrats, but not on Re- 
publicans. Are not Republicans bound by the laws 10 
of the land as well as Democrats? And when the 
court has fixed the construction of the Consti- 
tution on the validity of a given law, is not their 
decision binding upon Republicans as well as upon 
Democrats? Is it possible that you Republicans 15 
have the right to raise your mobs and oppose the 
laws of the land and the constituted authorities, and 
yet hold us Democrats bound to obey them? My 
time is within half a minute of expiring, and all I 
have to say is, that I stand by the laws of the land. 20 
I stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, 
by the laws as they are enacted, and by the de- 
cisions of the court upon all points within their 
jurisdiction as they are pronounced by the highest 
tribunal on earth; and any man who resists these 25 
must resort to mob law and violence to overturn the 
government of laws. 



Cbe Seventh anO Xast 3o(nt Debate, at Hlton 

[October 15, 1858] 
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 

Ladies and Gentlemen : It is now nearly four 

5 months since the canvass between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself commenced. On the i6th of June the Re- 
publican Convention assembled at Springfield and 
nominated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the 
United States Senate, and he, on that occasion, 

10 delivered a speech in which he laid down what he 
understood to be the Republican creed and the plat- 
form on which he proposed to stand during the 
contest. The principal points in that speech of 
Mr. Lincoln's were: First, that this government 

^5 could not endure permanently divided into Free and 
Slave States, as our fathers made it ; that they must 
all become free or all become slave; all become 
one thing, or all become the other, — otherwise this 
Union could not continue to exist. I give you his 

20 opinions almost in the identical language he used. 
His second proposition was a crusade against the 
Supreme Court of the United States because of 
the Dred Scott decision, urging as an especial 
reason for his opposition to that decision that it de- 

25 prived the negroes of the rights and benefits of that 

142 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 143 

clause in the Constitution of the United States 
which guarantees to the citizens of each State all 
the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citi- 
zens of the several States. On the loth of July I 
returned home, and delivered a speech to the people 5 
of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my pur- 
pose to appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain 
the course I had pursued in Congress. In that 
speech I joined issue with Mr. Lincoln on the points 
which he had presented. Thus there was an issue 10 
clear and distinct made up between us on these two 
propositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lin- 
coln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my 
reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the nth 
of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, 15 
explaining at some length and reaffirming the posi- 
tions which he had taken in his Springfield speech. 
In that Chicago speech he even went further than 
he had before, and uttered sentiments in regard to 
the negro being on an equality with the white man. 20 
He adopted in support of this position the argu- 
ment which Lovejoy and Codding and other Aboli- 
tion lecturers had made familiar in the northern and 
central portions of the State; to wit, that the 
Declaration of Independence having declared all 25 
men free and equal, by divine law, also that negro 
equality was an inalienable right, of which they 
could not be deprived. He insisted, in that speech, 
that the Declaration of Independence included the 
; negro in the clause asserting that all men were 3° 
created equal, and went so far as to say that if 



144 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

one man was allowed to take the position that it 
did not include the negro, others might take the 
position that it did not include other men. He said 
that all these distinctions between this man and 

5 that man, this race and the other race, must be dis- 
carded, and we must all stand by the Declaration of 
Independence, declaring that all men were created 
equal. 

The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lin- 

lo coin and myself on three points, we went before the 
people of the State. During the following seven 
weeks, between the Chicago speeches and our first 
meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large as- 
semblages of the people in many of the central 

15 counties. In my speeches I confined myself closely 
to those three positions which he had taken, con- 
troverting his proposition that this Union could not 
exist as our fathers made it, divided into Free and 
Slave States, controverting his proposition of a 

20 crusade against the Supreme Court because of the 
Dred Scott decision, and controverting his proposi- 
tion that the Declaration of Independence included 
and meant the negroes as well as the white men, 
when it declared all men to be created equal. I 

25 supposed at that time that these propositions con- 
stituted a distinct issue between us, and that the 
opposite positions we had taken upon them we 
would be willing to be held to in every part of the 
State. I never intended to waver one hair's breadth 

30 from that issue either in the north or the south or j 
wherever I should address the people of Illinois. 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH i.\s 

I hold that when the time arrives that I cannot pro- 
claim my political creed in the same terms, not 
only in the northern, but in the southern part of 
Illinois, not only in the Northern, but the Southern 
States, and wherever the American flag waves over 5 
American soil, that then there must be something 
wrong in that creed; so long as we live under a 
common Constitution, so long as we live in a con- 
federacy of sovereign and equal States, joined to- 
gether as one for certain purposes, that any political ic 
creed is radically wrong which cannot be pro- 
claimed in every State and every section of that 
Union, alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three proposi- 
tions in my several speeches, analyzed them, and 
pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors 15 
contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine 
that this government was in violation of the law of 
God, which says that a house divided against itself 
cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slander upon the 
immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, 20 
I have often repeated, and now again assert, that 
in my opinion our government can endure forever, 
divided into Free and Slave States as our fathers 
made it, — each State having the right to prohibit, 
abolish, or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This 25 
government was made upon the great basis of the 
sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to 
regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself; 
and that right was conferred with the understand- 
ing and expectation that inasmuch as each locality 3° 
had separate interests, each locality must have dif- 



146 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

ferent and distinct local and domestic institutions,, 
corresponding to its wants and interests. Our 
fathers knew when they made the government thatl^ 
the laws and institutions which were well adapted! 

5 to the Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuitedl 
to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They 
knew then, as well as we know now, that the laws; 
and institutions which would be well adapted to the ' 
beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to^ 

to the mining regions of California. They knew that 
in a Republic as broad as this, having such a variety 
of soil, climate, and interest, there must necessarily 
be a corresponding variety of local laws, — the 
policy and institutions of each State adapted to its 

15 condition and wants. ' For this reason this Union 
was established on the right of each State to do as 
it pleased on the question of slavery, and every 
other question; and the various States were not 
allowed to complain of, much less interfere with, 

20 the policy of their neighbors. 

Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln 
and the AboHtionists of this day had prevailed 
when the Constitution was made, what would have 
been the result? Imagine for a moment that Mr. 

25 Lincoln had been a member of the Convention that 
framed the Constitution of the United States, and 
that when its members were about to sign that won- 
derful document, he had arisen in that Convention 
as he did at Springfield this summer, and, address- 

V> ing himself to the President, had said, *'A house 
divided against itself cannot stand; this govern- 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH W 

nieiit, divided into Free and Slave States cannot en- 
dure, they must all be free or all be slave; they 
must all be one thing, or all the other, — otherwise, 
it is a violation of the law of God, and cannot con- 
tinue to exist ; " — suppose Mr. Lincoln had con- 5 
vinced that body of sages that that doctrine was 
sound, what would have been the result? Remem- 
ber that the Union was then composed of thirteen 
States, twelve of which were slaveholding, and one 
free. Do you think that the one Free State would 10 
have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and 
thus have secured the abolition of slavery? On the 
other hand, would not the twelve slaveholding 
States have outvoted the one free State, and thus 
have fastened slavery, by a constitutional provision, 15 
on every foot of the American Republic forever? 
You see that if this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lin- 
coln had prevailed when the government was made, 
it would have established slavery as a permanent 
institution in all the States, whether they wanted it 20 
or not ; and the question for us to determine in Illi- 
nois now, as one of the Free States, is whether or 
not we are willing, having become the majority 
section, to enforce a doctrine on the minority which 
we would have resisted with our heart's blood had ^5 
it been attempted on us when we were in a minority. 
How has the South lost her power as the majority 
section in this Union, and how have the Free 
States gained it, except under the operation of that 
principle which declares the right of the people of 30 
each State and each Territory to form and regulate 



148 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

their domestic institutions in their own way? It 
was under that principle that slavery was abolished 
in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it was 
5 under that principle that one-half of the slavehold- 
ing States became free: it was under that prin- 
ciple that the number of Free States increased until, 
from being one out of twelve States, we have 
grown to be the majority of States of the whole 

lo Union, with the power to control the House of 
Representatives and Senate, and the power, conse- 
quently, to elect a President by Northern votes, 
without the aid of a Southern State. Having ob- 
tained this power under the operation of that great 

15 principle, are you now prepared to abandon the 
principle and declare that merely because we have 
the power you will wage a war against the Southern 
States and their institutions until you force them to 
abolish slavery everywhere? 

20 After having pressed these arguments home on 
Mr. Lincoln for seven weeks, publishing a number 
of my speeches, we met at Ottawa in joint discus- 
sion, and he then began to crawfish a little, and 
let himself down. I there propounded certain ques- 

25 tions to him. Amongst others, I asked him whether 
he would vote for the admission of any more Slave 
States, in the event the people wanted them. He 
would not answer. I then told him that if he did 
not answer the question there, I would renew it at 

30 Freeport, and would then trot him down into Egypt, 
and again put it to him. Well, at Freeport, know- 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 149 

ing that the next joint discussion took place in 
Egypt, and being in dread of it, he did answer my 
question in regard to no more Slave States in a 
mode which he hoped would be satisfactory to me, 
and accomplish the object he had in view. I will 5 
show you what his answer was. After saying that 
he was not pledged to the Republican doctrine of 
" no more Slave States," he declared : 

" I state to you freely, frankly, that I should be 
exceedingly sorry to ever be put in the position of ^^ 
having to pass upon that question. I should be exceed- 
ingly glad to know that there never would be another 
Slave State admitted into this Union." 

Here permit me to remark, that I do not think 
the people will ever force him into a position against ^5 
his will. He went on to say: 

" But I must add, in regard to this, that if slavery 
shall be kept out of the Territory during the Territorial 
existence of any one given Territory, and then the 
people should, having a fair chance and a clear field, 20 
when they come to adopt a constitution, if they should 
do the extraordinary thing of adopting a slave consti- 
tution uninfluenced by the actual presence of the 
institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own 
the country, but we must admit it into the Union." 25 

That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed would satisfy 
the old line Whigs, composed of Kentuckians and 
\irginians, down in the southern part of the State. 



150 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT AETON 

Now, what does it amount to? I desired to know 
whether he would vote to allow Kansas to come into 
the Union with slavery or not, as her people de- 
sired. He would not answer, but in a roundabout 
5 way said that if slavery should be kept out of a 
Territory during the whole of its Territorial exist- 
ence, and then the people, when they adopted a State 
Constitution, asked admission as a Slave State, he 
supposed he would have to let the State come in. 

lo The case I put to him was an entirely different one. 
I desired to know whether he would vote to admit 
a State if Congress had not prohibited slavery in it 
during its Territorial existence, as Congress never 
pretended to do under Clay's Compromise measures 

15 of 1850. He would not answer, and I have not 
yet been able to get an answer from him. I have 
asked him whether he would vote to admit Ne- 
braska, if her people asked to come in as a State with 
a constitution recognizing slavery, and he refused 

20 to answer. I have put the question to him with 
reference to New Mexico, and he has not uttered 
a word in answer. I have enumerated the Terri- 
tories, one after another, putting the same question 
to him with reference to each, and he has not said, 

25 and will not say, whether, if elected to Congress, 
he will vote to admit any Territory now in existence 
with such a constitution as her people may adopt. 
He invents a case which does not exist, and cannot 
exist under this government, and answers it; but 

30 he will not answer the question I put to him in 
connection with any of the Territories now in 



i 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 151 

existence. The contract we entered into with Texas 
when she entered the Union obUges us to allow 
four States to be formed out of the old State, and 
admitted with or without slavery, as the respective 
inhabitants of each may determine. I have asked 5 
Mr. Lincoln three times in our joint discussions 
whether he would vote to redeem that pledge, and 
he has never yet answered. He is as silent as the 
grave on the subject. He would rather answer as 
to a state of the case which will never arise than 10 
commit himself by telling what he would do in a 
case which would come up for his action soon after 
his election to Congress. /Why can he not say 
whether he is willing to 'allow the people of each 
State to have slavery or not as they please, and to 15 
come into the Union, when they have the requisite 
population, as a Slave or a Free State as they de- 
cide? I have no trouble in answering the question. 
I have said everywhere, and now repeat it to you, 
that if the people of Kansas want a Slave State they 20 
have a right, under the Constitution of the United 
States, to form such a State, and I will let them 
come into the Union with* slavery or without, as 
they determine. If the people of any other Terri- 
tory desire slavery, let them have it. If they do 25 
not want it, let them prohibit it. It is their busi- 
ness, not mine. It is none of our business in 
Illinois whether Kansas is a Free State or a Slave 
State. It is none of your business in Missouri 
whether Kansas shall adopt slavery or reject it. 30 
It is the business of her people, and none of yours. 



152 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

The people of Kansas have as much right to de- 
cide that question for themselves as you have in 
Missouri to decide it for yourselves, or we in Illinois 
to decide it for ourselves. 
5 And here I may repeat what I have said in every 
speech I have made in Illinois, that I fought the 
Lecompton Constitution to its death, not because 
of the slavery clause in it, but because it was not 
the act and deed of the people of Kansas. I said 

lo then in Congress, and I say now, that if the people 
of Kansas want a Slave State, they have a right to 
have it. If they wanted the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion, they had a right to have it. I was opposed to 
that constitution because I did not believe that it 

15 was the act and deed of the people, but, on the 
contrary, the act of a small, pitiful minority acting 
in the name of the majority. When at last it was 
determined to send that constitution back to the 
people, and, accordingly, in August last, the ques- 

20 tion of admission under it was submitted to a popu- 
lar vote, the citizens rejected it by nearly ten to 
one, thus showing conclusively that I was right 
when I said that the Lecompton Constitution was 
not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and 

25 did not embody their will. 

I hold that there is no power on earth, under our 
system of government, which has the right to force 
a constitution upon an unwilling people. Suppose 
that there had been a majority of ten to one in favor 

30 of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there had been an 
Abolition President and an Abolition Administra- 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 153 

tion, and by some means the Abolitionists succeeded 
m forcing an Abolition Constitution upon those 
slaveholding people, would the people of the South 
have submitted to that act for an instant ? Well, if 
you of the South would not have submitted to it a 5 
day, how can you, as fair, honorable, and honest 
men, insist on putting a slave constitution on a peo- 
ple who desire a Free State ? Your safety and ours 
depend upon both of us acting in good faith, and 
living up to that great principle which asserts the 10 
right of every people to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only 
to the Constitution of the United States. 

Most of the men who denounced my course on 
the Lecompton question objected to it, not because 15 
I was not right, but because they thought it expedi- 
ent at that time, for the sake of keeping the party 
together, to do wrong. I never knew the Demo- 
cratic party to violate any one of its principles, out 
of policy or expediency, that it did not pay the debt 20 
with sorrow. There is no safety or success for our 
party unless we always do right, and trust the con- 
sequences to God and the people. I chose not to 
depart from principle for the sake of expediency 
on the Lecompton question, and I never intend ta/25 
do it on that or any other question. ^ 

But I am told that I would have been all right if 
I had only voted for the English bill after the 
Lecompton was killed. You know a general par- 
don was granted to all political offenders on the 30 
Lecompton question, provided they would only vote 



154 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

for the English bill. I did not accept the benefits 
of that pardon for the reason that I had been right 
in the course I had pursued, and hence did not 
require any forgiveness. Let us see how the result 
5 has been worked out. English brought in his bill 
referring the Lecompton Constitution back to the 
people, with the provision that if it was rejected, 
Kansas should be kept out of the Union until she 
had the full ratio of population required for mem- 

lo ber of Congress, — thus in effect declaring that if the 
people of Kansas would only consent to come into 
the Union under the Lecompton Constitution, and 
have a Slave State when they did not want it, they 
should be admitted with a population of 35,000; 

15 but that if they were so obstinate as to insist upon 
having just such a constitution as they thought best, 
and to desire admission as a free State, then they 
should be kept out until they had 93,420 inhabitants. 
I then said, and I now repeat to you, that whenever 

20 Kansas has people enough for a Slave State she has 
people enough for a Free State. I was, and am 
willing to adopt the rule that no State shall ever 
come into the Union until she has the full ratio of 
population for a member of Congress, provided that 

25 rule is made uniform. I made that proposition in 
the Senate last winter, but a majority of the Sena- 
tors would not agree to it ; and I then said to them, 
If you will not adopt the general rule, I will not con- 
sent to make an exception of Kansas. 

I hold that it is a violation of the fundamental 
principles of this government to throw the weight 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 155 

of Federal power into the scale, either in favor of 
the Free or the Slave States. Equality among all 
the States of this Union is a fundamental principle 
in our political system. We have no more right to 
throw the weight of the Federal Government into 5 
the scale in favor of the slaveholding than the Free 
States, and last of all should our friends in the 
South consent for a moment that Congress should 
withhold its powers either way when they know that 
there is a majority against them in both Houses 10 
of Congress. 

Fellow-citizens, how have the supporters of the 
English bill stood up to their pledges not to admit 
Kansas until she obtained a population of 93,420 
in the event she rejected the Lecompton Constitu- 15 
tion? How? The newspapers inform us that 
English himself, whilst conducting his canvass for 
re-election, and in order to secure it, pledged him- 
self to his constituents that if returned he would 
disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into 20 
the Union with such population as she might have 
when she made application. We are informed that 
every Democratic candidate for Congress in all the 
States where elections have recently been held was 
pledged against the English bill, with perhaps one 25 
or two exceptions. Now, if I had only done as 
these anti-Lecompton men who voted for the Eng- 
lish bill in Congress, pledging themselves to refuse 
to admit Kansas if she refused to become a Slave 
State until she had a population of 93,420, and then 30 
returned to their people, forfeited their pledge, and 



156 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

made a new pledge to admit Kansas at any time she 
applied, without regard to population, I would have 
had no trouble. You saw the whole power and 
patronage of the Federal Government wielded in 
5 Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to re-elect anti- 
Lecompton men to Congress who voted against 
Lecompton, then voted for the English bill, and then 
denounced the English bill, and pledged themselves 
to their people to disregard it. My sin consists in 

^o not having given a pledge, and then in not having 
afterward forfeited it. For that reason, in this 
State, every postmaster, every route agent, every 
collector of the ports, and every Federal office- 
holder forfeits his head the moment he expresses a 

15 preference for the Democratic candidates against 
Lincoln and his Abolition associates. A Demo- 
cratic Administration which we helped to bring into 
power deems it consistent with its fidelity to prin- 
ciple and its regard to duty to wield its power in 

20 this State in behalf of the Republican Abolition 
candidates in every county and every Congressional 
District against the Democratic party. All I have 
to say in reference to the matter is, that if that 
Administration have not regard enough for prin- 

25 ciple, if they are not sufficiently attached to the 
creed of the Democratic party, to bury forever their 
personal hostilities in order to succeed in carrying 
out our glorious principles, I have. I have no per- 
sonal difficulty with Mr. Buchanan or his Cabinet. 

30 He chose to make certain recommendations to Con- 
gress, as he had a right to do, on the Lecompton 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 157 

question. I could not vote in favor of thcni. 1 
had as much right to judge for myself how I should 
vote as he had how he should recommend. He 
undertook to say to me, " If you do not vote as I 
tell you, I will take off the heads of your friends." 5 
I replied to him, " You did not elect me. I repre- 
sent Illinois, and I am accountable to Illinois, as my 
constituency, and to God; but not to the President 
or to any other power on earth." 

And now this warfare is made on me because I i<^ 
would not surrender my convictions of duty, because 
I would not abandon my constituency, and receive 
the orders of the executive authorities as to how I 
should vote in the Senate of the United States. I 
hold that an attempt to control the Senate on the part 15 
of the Executive is subversive of the principles of 
our Constitution. The Executive department is inde- 
pendent of the Senate, and the Senate is independ- 
ent of the President. In matters of legislation the 
President has a veto on the action of the Senate, 20 
and in appointments and treaties the Senate has a 
veto on the President. He has no more right to tell 
me how I shall vote on his appointments than I have 
to tell him whether he shall veto or approve a bill 
that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recog- 25 
nize the right of the Executive to say to a Senator, 
" Do this, or I will take off the heads of your 
friends," you convert this government from a repub- 
lic into a despotism. Whenever you recognize the 
right of a President to say to a member of Congress, 30 
" Vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear 



IS8 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

against you at home which will crush you," you 
destroy the independence of the representative and 
convert him into a tool of Executive power. I 
resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of 
5 a Senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have 
a voice to speak or a vote to give. Yet Mr. 
Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota 
of Democratic principles out of revenge or hostility 
to his course. I stand by the platform of the Dem- 

lo ocratic party, and by its organization, and support 
its nominees. If there are any who choose to bolt, 
the fact only shows that they are not as good Dem- 
ocrats as I am. 

My friends, there never was a time when it was 

15 as important for the Democratic party, for all 
national men, to rally and stand together, as it is 
to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past 
differences and continuing the one question of slav- 
ery; and when we find sectional men thus uniting 

20 we should unite to resist them and their treasonable 
designs. Such was the case in 1850, v^hen Clay 
left the quiet and peace of his home, and again en- 
tered upon public life to quell agitation and restore 
peace to a distracted Union. Then we Democrats, 

25 with Cass at our head, welcomed Henry Clay, 
whom the whole nation regarded as having been 
preserved by God for the times. He became our 
leader in that great fight, and we rallied around 
him the same as the Whigs rallied around old 

30 Hickory in 1832 to put down nullification. Thus 
you see that whilst Whigs and Democrats fought 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 150 

fearlessly in old times about banks, the tariff, dis- 
tribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, 
all united as a band of brothers when the peace, 
harmony, or integrity of the Union was imperiled. 
It was so in 1850, when Abolitionism had even so 5 
far divided this country. North and South, as to 
endanger the peace of the Union ; Whigs and Demo- 
crats united in establishing the Compromise Meas- 
ures of that year, and restoring tranquillity and good 
feeling. ^^ 

These measures passed on the joint action of 
the two parties. They rested on the great prin- 
ciple that the people of each State and each Terri- 
tory should be left perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions to suit them- 15 
selves. You Whigs and we Democrats justified 
them in that principle. In 1854, when it became 
necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and 
Nebraska, I brought forward the bill on the same 
principle. In the Kansas-Nebraska bill you find it 20 
declared to be the true intent and meaning of the 
Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Terri- 
tory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the 
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate 
their domestic institutions in their own way. I 25 
stand on that same platform in 1858 that I did in 
1850, 1854, and 1856. The Washington " Union," 
pretending to be the organ of the Adminstration, 
in the number of the 5th of this month, devotes 
three columns and a half to establish these propo- 30 
sitions: first, that Douglas, in his Freeport speech, 



160 IME ^hVtNlH JOIN I UhBAlh, AT ALTON 

held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska 
bill in 1854; second, that in 1854 Douglas justified 
the Nebraska bill upon the ground that it was based 
upon the same principle as Clay's Compromise 
5 Measures of 1850. The '' Union " thus proved that 
Douglas was the same in 1858 that he was in 1856, 
1854, and 1850, and consequently argued that he 
was never a Democrat. Is it not funny that I was 
never a Democrat? There is no pretence that I 

10 have changed a hair's breadth. The " Union " 
proves by my speeches that I explained the Com- 
promise Measures of 1850 just as I do now, and 
that I explained the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 
1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, and yet 

'5 says that I am not a Democrat, and cannot be 
trusted, because I have not changed during the 
whole of that time. It has occurred to me that in 
1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska bill 
was considered a pretty good Democrat. It has 

20 occurred to me that in 1856, when I was exerting 
every nerve and every energy for James Buchanan, 
standing on the same platform then that I do now, 
that I was a pretty good Democrat. They now tell 
me that I am not a Democrat, because I assert that 

25 the people of a Territory, as well as those of a State, 
have the right to decide for themselves whether 
slavery can or cannot exist in such Territory. Let 
me read what James Buchanan said on that point 
when he accepted the Democratic nomination for 

30 the Presidency in 1856. In his letter of acceptance, 
he used the following language: 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH i6i 

" The recent legislation of Congress respecting do- 
mestic slavery, derived as it has been from the original 
and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will 
of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous 
excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles 5 
as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance 
with them, has simply declared that the people of a 
Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for them- 
selves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within 
their limits." ^^ 

Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the ques- 
tion he propounded to me before I commenced 
speaking. Of course, no man will consider it an 
answer who is outside of the Democratic organiza- 
tion, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly 15 
aids to put Abolitionists into power over Democrats. 
But whether Dr. Hope considers it an answer or 
not, every fair-minded man will see that James 
Buchanan has answered the question, and has as- 
serted that the people of a Territory, like those of 20 
a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery 
shall or shall not exist within their limits. I an- 
swer specifically if you want a further answer, and 
say that while under the decision of the Supreme 
Court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice 25 
Taney, slaves are property like all other property, 
and can be carried into any Territory of the United 
States the same as any other description of prop- 
erty, yet when you get them there they are subject 
to the local law of the Territory just like all other 50 
property. You will find in a recent speech delivered 



i62 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

by that able and eloquent statesman, Hon. Jefferson 
Davis, at Bangor, Maine, that he took the same 
view of this subject that I did in my Freeport 
speech. He there said: 

5 " If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse 
to enact such laws and police regulations as would 
give security to their property or to his, it would be 
rendered more or less valueless in proportion to the 
difficulties of holding it without such protection. In 

lo the case of property in the labor of man, or what is 
usually called slave property, the insecurity would be 
so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. 
Therefore, though the right would remain, the remedy 
being withheld, it would follow that the owner would 

15 be practically debarred, by the circumstances of the case, 
from taking slave property into a Territory where the 
sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduc- 
tion. So much for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing 
slavery upon any community." 

20 You will also find that the distinguished Speaker 
of the present House of Representatives, Hon. Jas. 
L. Orr, construed the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 
this same way in 1856, and also that great intellect 
of the South, Alex. H. Stephens, put the same con- 

25 struction upon it in Congress that I did in my Free- 
port speech. The whole South are rallying to the 
support of the doctrine that if the people of a Ter- 
ritory want slavery, they have a right to have it, 
and if they do not want it, that no power on earth 

30 can force it upon them. I hold that there is no 
principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 163 

freedom than that which says that no institution, 
no law, no constitution, should be forced on an un- 
willing people contrary to their wishes ; and I assert 
that the Kansas and Nebraska bill contains that 
principle. It is the great principle contained in that 5 
bill. It is the principle on which James Buchanan 
was made President. Without that principle, he 
never would have been made President of the United 
States. I will never violate or abandon that doc- 
trine, if I have to stand alone. I have resisted the 10 
blandishments and threats of power on the one side, 
and seduction on the other, and have stood im- 
movably for that principle, fighting for it when 
assailed by Northern mobs, or threatened by South- 
ern hostility. I have defended it against the North 15 
and the South, and I will defend it against whoever 
assails it, and I will follow it wherever its logical 
conclusions lead me. I say to you that there is but 
one hope, one safety for this country, and that is 
to stand immovably by that principle which de- 20 
Glares the right of each State and each Territory 
to decide these questions for themselves. This gov- 
ernment was founded on that principle, and must 
be administered in the same sense in which it was 
founded. 25 

But the Abolition party really thinks that under 
the Declaration of Independence the negro is equal 
to the white man, and that negro equality is an in- 
alienable right conferred by the Almighty, and 
hence that all human laws in violation of it are null 30 
and void. With such men it is no use for me to 



i64 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

argue. I hold that the signers of the Declaration 
of Independence had no reference to negroes at all 
when they declared all men to be created equal. 
They did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians, 
5 nor the Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous 
race. They were speaking of white men. They 
alluded to men of European birth and European 
descent, — to white men, and to none others, — when 
they declared that doctrine. I hold that this gov- 

lo ernment was established on the white basis. It was 
established by white men for the benefit of white 
men and their posterity forever, and should be ad- 
ministered by white men, and none others. But it 
does not follow, by any means, that merely because 

15 the negro is not a citizen, and merely because he is 
not our equal, that, therefore, he should be a slave. 
On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to 
extend to the negro race, and to all other depend- 
ent races, all the rights, all the privileges, and all 

20 the immunities which they can exercise consistently 
with the safety of society. Humanity requires that 
we should give them all these privileges ; Chris- 
tianity commands that we should extend those priv- 
ileges to them. The question then arises. What 

25 are those privileges, and what is the nature and 
extent of them ? My answer is, that that is a ques- 
tion which each State must answer for itself. We 
in Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried 
slavery, kept it up for twelve years, and finding 

30 that it was not profitable, we abolished it for that 
reason, and became a Free State. We adopted in 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 165 

its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall 
not be a slave and shall not be a citizen. We have 
a right to adopt that policy. For my part, I think 
it is a wise and sound policy for us. You in Mis- 
souri must judge for yourselves whether it is a wise s 
policy for you. If you choose to follow our 
example, very good; if you reject it, still well, — it 
is your business, not ours. So with Kentucky. 
Let Kentucky adopt a policy to suit herself. If 
we do not like it, we will keep away from it; and 10 
if she does not like ours, let her stay at home, 
mind her own business, and let us alone. If the 
people of all the States will act on that great 
principle, and each State mind its own business, 
attend to its own affairs, take care of its 15 
own negroes, and not meddle with its neighbors, 
then there will be peace between the North and 
the South, the East and the West, throughout the 
whole Union. 

Why can we not thus have peace? Why should 20 
we thus allow a sectional party to agitate this coun- 
try, to array the North against the South, and con- 
vert us into enemies instead of friends, merely that 
a few ambitious men may ride into power on a sec- 
tional hobby ? How long is it since these ambitious 25 
Northern men wished for a sectional organization? 
Did any one of them dream of a sectional party as 
long as the North was the weaker section and the 
South the stronger? Then all were opposed to sec- 
tional parties ; but the moment the North obtained 3° 
the majority in the House and Senate by the admis- 



i66 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

sion of California, and could elect a President with- 
out the aid of Southern votes, that moment 
ambitious Northern men formed a scheme to excite 
the North against the South, and make the people 

5 be governed in their votes by geographical lines, 
thinking that the North, being the stronger section, 
would outvote the South, and consequently they, 
the leaders, would ride into office on a sectional 
hobby. I am told that my hour is out. It was 

lo very short. 

MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 

Ladies and Gentlemen : I have been somewhat, 
in my own mind, eomplimented by a large portion 
of Judge Douglas's speech, — I mean that portion 

15 which he devotes to the controversy between him- 
self and the present Administration. This is the 
seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have met 
in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually 
improving in regard to his war with the Adminis- 

20 tration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he was 
a little more severe upon the Administration than 
I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains 
to compliment him for it. I then told him to 
" Give it to them with all the power he had " ; and 

^5 as some of them were present, I told them I would 
be very much obliged if they would give it to him in 
about the same way. I take it he has now vastly 
improved upon the attack he made then upon the 
Administration. I flatter myself he has really taken 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 167 

my advice on this subject. All I can say now is 
to recommend to him and to them what I then com- 
mended, — to prosecute the war against one another 
in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again: 
*' Go it, husband ! — Go it, bear ! " 5 

There is one other thing I will mention before I 
leave this branch of the discussion, — although I 
do not consider it much of my business, anyway. 
I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where 
he undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an in- 10 
consistency. He reads something from Mr. Bu- 
chanan, from which he undertakes to involve him 
in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a 
cheer for having done so. I would only remind 
the Judge that while he is very valiantly fighting 15 
for the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise, it has been but a little while since he 
was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compro- 
mise. I want to know if Buchanan has not as much 
right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has 20 
Douglas the exclusive right, in this country, of 
being on all sides of all questions? Is nobody al- 
lowed that high privilege but himself? Is he to 
have an entire monopoly on that subject? . 

So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to 25 
me, or so far as it was about me, it is my business 
to pay some attention to it. I have heard the Judge 
state two or three times what he has stated to-day, 
— that in a speech which I made at Springfield, 
Illinois, I had in a very especial manner complained 30 
that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had 



i68 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the 
United States. I have omitted by some accident 
heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is re- 
quired of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is 
5 untrue. I never have complained especially of the 
Dred Scott decision because it held that a negro 
could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always 
wrong when he says I ever did so complain of it. 
I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any 

lo of his friends to show where I said that a negro 
should be a citizen, and complained especially of 
the Dred Scott decision because it declared he could 
not be one. I have done no such thing ; and Judge 
Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done 

15 so, has strongly impressed me with the belief of a 
predetermination on his part to misrepresent me. 
He could not get his foundation for insisting that 
I was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else 
as well as he could by assuming that untrue propo- 

20 sition. Let me tell this audience what is true in 
regard to that matter ; and the means by which they 
may correct me if I do not tell them truly is by a 
recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke of the Dred 
Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was 

25 then endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott 
decision was a portion of a system or scheme to 
make slavery national in this country. I pointed 
out what things had been decided by the court. I 
mentioned as a fact that they had decided that a 

30 negro could not be a citizen ; that they had done 
§0j as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 169 

circumstances, of the remotest possiblility of ever 
becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a 
citizen of the United States under a certain clause 
of the Constitution. I stated that, without making 
any complaint of it at all. I then went on and stated 5 
the other points decided in the case ; namely, that 
the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois 
and holding him in slavery for two years here was 
a matter in regard to which they would not decide 
whether it would make him free or not; that they 10 
decided the further point that taking him into a 
United States Territory where slavery was pro- 
hibited by Act of Congress did not make him free, 
because that Act of Congress, as they held, was 
unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things 15 
as making up the points decided in that case. I 
mentioned them in a lump, taken in connection with 
the introduction of the Nebraska bill, and the amend- 
ment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of 
the right of the people of the Territories to exclude 20 
slavery, which was voted down by the friends of 
the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as 
evidence tending to prove a combination and con- 
spiracy to make the institution of slavery national. 
In that connection and in that way I mentioned the 25 
decision on the point that a negro could not be a 
citizen, and in no other connection. 

Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beauti- 
ful fabrication of my purpose to introduce a perfect 
social and political equality between the white and 2>o 
black races. His assertion that I made an '* especial 



30 



170 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

objection" (that is his exact language) to the 
decision on this account, is untrue in point of fact. 

Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry 
Clay has been alluded to, I desire to place myself, 
in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right before 
this people as may be. I am quite aware what the 
Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He 
knows that we are before an audience having 
strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place 
of birth, and so on. He desires to place me in an 
extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a 
former occasion, and alludes, without reading, 
to-day to a portion of a speech which I delivered 
in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as 
he has made them upon former occasions, the ex- 
tracts were taken in such a way as, I suppose, 
brings them within the definition of what is called 
garbling, — taking portions of a speech which, when 
taken by themselves, do not present the entire sense 
of the speaker as expressed at the time. I propose, 
therefore, out of that same speech, to show how one 
portion of it which he skipped over (taking an 
extract before and an extract after) will give a 
different idea, and the true idea I intended to con- 
vey. It will take me some little time to read it, but 
I believe I will occupy the time that way. 

You have heard him frequently allude to my con- 
troversy with him in regard to the Declaration of 
Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle 
with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try 
briefly to place myself right in regard to it on this 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 171 

occasion. I said — and it is between the extracts 
Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put 
in his pubhshed speeches: 

" It may be argued that there are certain conditions 
that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to 5 
the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man he 
must submit to it. I think that was the condition in 
which we found ourselves when we established this 
government. We had slaves among us, we could not 
get our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain 10 
in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure 
if we grasped for more; and having by necessity sub- 
mitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle 
that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter 
remain as our standard." ^5 

Now, I have upon all occasions declared as 
strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition 
to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. 
You hear me read it from the same speech from 
which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of 20 
proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the 
institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social 
and political equality between negroes and white 
people. 

Allow me while upon this subject briefly to pre- ^5 
sent one other extract from a speech of mine, more 
than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this 
very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took 
his ground that negroes were not included in the 
Declaration of Independence : ^° 



172 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

" I think the authors of that notable instrument in- 
tended to include all men, but they did not intend to 
declare all men equal in all respects. They did not 
mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, 
5 moral development, or social capacity. They defined 
with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider 
all men created equal, — equal in certain inalienable 
rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. 

lo They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that 
all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet 
that they were about to confer it immediately upon 
them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a 
boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that 

15 the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circum- 
stances should permit. 

" They meant to set up a standard maxim for free 
society which should be familiar to all, — constantly 
looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though 

20 never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and 
thereby constantly spreading and deepening its in- 
fluence, and augmenting the happiness and value of 
life to all people, of all colors, everywhere." 

There again are the sentiments I have expressed 
25 in regard to the Declaration of Independence upon 
a former occasion, — sentiments which have been put 
in print and read wherever anybody cared to know 
what so humble an individual as myself chose to say 
in regard to it. 
30 At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer 
to Judge Douglas, that three years ago there never 
had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY I73 

whole world, who had said that the Declaration of 
Independence did not include negroes in the term 
" all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert that Judge 
Douglas and all his friends may search the whole 
records of the country, and it will be a matter of 5 
great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find 
that one human being three years ago had ever 
uttered the astounding sentiment that the term " all 
men " in the Declaration did not include the negro. 
Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more lo 
than three years ago there were men who, finding 
this assertion constantly in the way of their schemes 
to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of 
slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. 
Calhoun and all the politicians of his school denied i5 
the truth of the Declaration. I know that it ran 
along in the mouth of some Southern men for a 
period of years, ending at last in that shameful, 
though rather forcible, declaration of Pettit of Indi- 
ana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that 20 
the Declaration of Independence was in that respect 
'' a self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth. 
But I say, with a perfect knowledge of all this 
hawking at the Declaration without directly attack- 
ing it, that three years ago there never had lived a 25 
man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking 
way of pretending to believe it, and then asserting 
it did not include the negro. I believe the first man 
who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the 
Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend ^'^ 
Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the 



174 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

catchword of the entire party. I would Hke to call 
upon his friends everywhere to consider how they 
have come in so short a time to view this matter in 
a way so entirely different from their former belief ; 
5 to ask whether they are not being borne along by; 
an irresistible current, — whither, they know not. 

In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last 
week, I see that some man in Chicago has got up a 
letter, addressed to the Chicago " Times," to show, 

lo as he professes, that somebody had said so before; 
and he signs himself " An Old Line Whig," if I 
remember correctly. In the first place, I would say; 
he was not an old line Whig. I am somewhat ac- 
quainted with old line Whigs from the origin to 

15 the end of that party; I became pretty well ac-» 
quainted with them, and I know they always had 
some sense, whatever else you could ascribe to them, 
I know there never was one who had not more sense 
than to try to show by the evidence he produces that 

20 some man had, prior to the time I named, said that 
negroes were not included in the term "all men" 
in the Declaration of Independence. What is the 
evidence he produces? I will bring forward his 
evidence, and let you see what he offers by way of 

25 showing that somebody more than three years ago 
had said negroes were not included in the Declara- 
tion. He brings forward part of a speech from 
Henry Clay, — the part of the speech of Henry Clay 
which I used to bring forward to prove precisely 

30 the contrary. I guess we are surrounded to some 
extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 175 

they will be glad to hear anything from that author- 
ity. While he was in Indiana a man presented a 
petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) 
made a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he 
carefully wrote out himself and caused to be pub- 5 
lished. I have before me an extract from that 
speech which constitutes the evidence this pretended 
" Old Line Whig " at Chicago brought forward to 
show that Mr. Clay didn't suppose the negro was 
included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear ^^ 
what Mr. Clay said : 

" And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in 
Indiana to liberate the slaves under my care in Ken- 
tucky ? It is a general declaration in the act announcing 
to the world the independence of the thirteen American 15 
colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an 
abstract principle, tJicre is no doubt of the truth of 
that declaration; and it is desirable, in the original con- 
struction of society and in organized societies, to keep 
it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, 20 
I apprehend that in no society that ever did exist, or 
ever shall be formed, was or can the equality asserted 
among the members of the human race be practically 
enforced and carried out. There are portions, large 
portions, — women, minors, insane, culprits, transient 25 
sojourners, — that will always probably remain subject 
to the government of another portion of the com- 
munity. 

" That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its 
import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen 30 
States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long 
existed, and was established by law. It was introduced 



176 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of 
England. Do you believe that in making that declara- 
tion the States that concurred in it intended that it 
should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all 

5 the slaves within their respective limits? Would Vir- 
ginia and other Southern States have ever united in a 
declaration which was to be interpreted into an aboli- 
tion of slavery among them? Did any one of the 
thirteen colonies entertain such a design or expecta- 

lo tion? To impute such a secret and unavowed purpose, 
would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest 
band of patriots that ever assembled in council, — a 
fraud upon the Confederacy of the Revolution ; a fraud 
upon the union of those States whose Constitution not 

15 only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted 
the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 
1808." 



This is the entire quotation brought forward to 
prove that somebody previous to three years ago 

20 had said the negro was not included in the term " all 
men " in the Declaration. How does it do so ? In 
what way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr. 
Clay says it is true as an abstract principle that all 
men are created equal, but that we cannot practically 

25 apply it in all cases. He illustrates this by bringing 
forward the cases of females, minors, and insane 
persons, with whom it cannot be enforced ; but he 
says it is true as an abstract principle in the organi- 
zation of society as well as in organized society and 

30 it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle. 
Let me read a few words more before I add some 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 177 

comments of my own. Mr. Clay says, a little fur- 
ther on : 

" I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to 
the institution of slavery, I look upon it as a great 
evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the 5 
parental government and from our ancestors. But 
here they are, and the question is, How can they 
be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and 
we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man 
would be more strongly opposed than I should he to 10 
incorporate the institution of slavery among its 
elements/* 

Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, 
in this same extract, brought forward to prove that 
Mr. Clay held that the negro was not included in i5 
the Declaration of Independence, is no such state- 
ment on his part, but the declaration that it is a 
great fundamental truth which should be constantly 
kept in view in the organization of society and in 
societies already organized. But if I say a word 20 
about it ; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men 
ought to do, to keep it in view ; if, in this " organ- 
ized society," I ask to have the public eye turned 
upon it ; if I ask, in relation to the organization of 
new Territories, that the public eye should be turned 25 
upon it, — forthwith I am vilified as you hear me 
to-day. What have I done that I have not the license 
of Henry Clay's illustrious example here in doing? 
Have I done aught that I have not his authority 
for, while maintaining that in organizing new Ter- 30 
ritories and societies, this fundamental principle 



should be regarded, and in organized society hold- 
ing it up to the public view and recognizing what 
he recognized as the great principle of freet 
government ? 

5 And when this new principle — this new proposi-- 
tion that no human being ever thought of three 
years ago — is brought forward, / combat it as hav- 
ing an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I com- 
bat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the; 

lo negro, to take away from him the right of ever 
striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of 
the thousand things constantly done in these days 
to prepare the public mind to make property, and 
nothing but property, of the negro in all the States 

15 of this Union. 

But there is a point that I wish, before leaving 
this part of the discussion, to ask attention to. I; 
have read and I repeat the words of Henry Clay : 

20 " I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard 
to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great 
evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the 
parental government and from our ancestors. I wish 
every slave in the United States was in the country of 

25 his ancestors. But here they are; the question is, 
How can they best be dealt with? H a state of nature 
existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of 
society, no man would be more strongly opposed than 
I should be to incorporate the institution of slavery 

30 among its elements." 

The principle upon which I have insisted in this 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY lyg 

canvass is in relation to laying the foundations of 
new societies. I have never sought to apply these 
principles to the old States for the purpose of abol- 
ishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a 
miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume 5 
that I have declared Missouri, or any other Slave 
State, shall emancipate her slaves ; I have proposed 
no such thing. But when Mr. Clay says that in 
laying the foundations of societies in our Territo- 
ries where it does not exist, he would be opposed 10 
to the introduction of slavery as an element, I insist 
that we have his warrant — his license — for insisting 
upon the exclusion of that element which he declared 
in such strong and emphatic language was most 
hateful to him. 15 

Judge Douglas has again referred to a Spring- 
field speech in which I said " a house divided 
against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so 
often made the entire quotation from that speech 
that I can make it from memory. I used this ^^ 
language : 

" We are now far into the fifth year since a policy 
was initiated with the avowed object and confident 
promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. 
Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not ^5 
only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my 
opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been 
reached and passed. * A house divided against itself 
cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot en- 
dure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not 30 
expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease 



i8o THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the 
other. Either the opponents of slavery v^^ill arrest the 
further spread of it, and place it where the public 
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course 
of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it 
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, 
♦—old as well as new, North as well as South." 



That extract and the sentiments expressed in it 
have been extremely offensive to Judge Douglas. 

^° He has warred upon .them as Satan wars upon the 
Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here 
now are my views upon it in brief. 

I said we were now far into the fifth year since a 
policy was initiated with the avowed object and 

^5 confident promise of putting an end to the slavery 
agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska bill 
was brought forward four years ago last January, 
was it not for the " avowed object" of putting an, 
end to the slavery agitation? We were to have no 

20 more agitation in Congress ; it was all to be ban- 
ished to the Territories. By the way, I will remark 
here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of com- 
plimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crit- 
tenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole 

25 business, for there was no slavery agitation at that 
time to allay. We were for a little while quiet on 
the troublesome thing, and that very allaying plas- 
ter of Judge Douglas stirred it up again. But was 
it not understood or intimated with the " confident 

30 promise" of putting an end to the slavery agita- 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY i8i 

tion? Surely it was. In every speech you heard 
Judge Douglas make, until he got into this " im- 
broglio," as they call it, with the Administration 
about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on 
that Nebraska bill was full of his felicitations that 5 
we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. 
The last tip of the last joint of the old serpent's tail 
was just drawing out of view. But has it proved 
so? I have asserted that under that policy that 
agitation '' has not only not ceased^ but has con- lo 
stantly augmented." When was there ever a greater 
agitation in Congress than last winter? When was 
it as great in the country as to-day? 

There was a collateral object in the introduction 
of that Nebraska policy, which was to clothe the 15 
people of the Territories with a superior degree of 
self-government, beyond what they had ever had 
before. The first object and the main one of con- 
ferring upon the people a higher degree of " self- 
government " is a question of fact to be determined 20 
by you in answer to a single question. Have you 
ever heard or known of a people anywhere on earth 
who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its 
use, the people of Kansas had with this same 
right of "self-government"? In its main policy 25 
and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but 
a living, creeping lie from the time of its introduc- 
tion till to-day. 

I have intimated that I thought the agitation 
would not cease until a crisis should have been 
reached and passed. I have stated in what way I 



30 



i82 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

thought it would be reached and passed. I have 
said that it might go one way or the other. We 
might, by arresting the further spread of it, and 
placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put 
5 it where the public mind should rest in the belief 
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. 
Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed 
forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the 
States, old as well as new, North as well as South. 

i^ I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the fur- 
ther spread of it may be arrested, and that it may 
be placed where the public mind shall rest in the 
belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. 
I have expressed that as my wish. I entertain the 

15 opinion, upon evidence sufficient to my mind, that 
the fathers of this government placed that institu- 
tion where the public mind did rest in the belief 
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Let 
me ask why they made provision that the source of 

20 slavery — the African slave-trade — should be cut off 
at the end of twenty years? Why did they make 
provision that in all the new territory we owned at 
that time slavery should be forever inhibited? 
Why stop its spread in one direction, and cut off its 

25 source in another, if they did not look to its being 
placed in the course of its ultimate extinction? 

Again: the institution of slavery is only men- 
tioned in the Constitution of the United States two 
or three times, and in neither of these cases does 

30 the word *' slavery " or " negro race " occur ; but 
covert language is used each time, and for a pur- 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 183 

pose full of significance. What is the language in 
regard to the prohibition of the African slave- 
trade ? It runs in about this way : *' The migra- 
tion or importation of such persons as any of the 
States now existing shall think proper to admit, 5 
shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the 
year one thousand eight hundred and eight." 

The next allusion in the Constitution to the ques- 
tion of slavery and the black race is on the subject 
of the basis of representation, and there the Ian- ^o 
guage used is : 

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor- 
tioned among the several States which may be included 
within this Union, according to their respective num- 
bers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole 15 
number of free persons, including those bound to serv- 
ice for a term of years, and excluding Indians not 
taxedj — three-fifths of all other persons." 

It says ** persons," not slaves, not negroes ; but 
this '* three-fifths " can be applied to no other class 30 
among us than the negroes. 

Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of 
fugitive slaves, it is said : " No person held to serv- 
ice or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, 
escaping into another, shall in consequence of any 25 
law or regulation therein be discharged from such 
service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim 
of the party to whom such service or labor may be 
due." There again there is no mention of the word 
" negro " or of slavery. In all three of these places, 3-^ 



i84 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

being the only allusions to slavery in the instru- 
ment, covert language is used. Language is used 
not suggesting that slavery existed or that the 
black race were among us. And I understand the 
5 contemporaneous history of those times to be that 
covert language was used "with a purpose, and that 
purpose was that in our Constitution, which it was 
hoped and is still hoped will endure forever, — 
when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic 

lo men, after the institution of slavery had passed 
from amongst us, — there should be nothing on the 
face of the great charter of liberty suggesting that 
such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed 
among us. This is part of the evidence that the 

15 fathers of the government expected and intended 
the institution of slavery to come to an end. They 
expected and intended that it should be in the course 
of ultimate extinction. And when I say that I 
desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only 

^^ say I desire to see that done which the fathers have 
first done. When I say I desire to see it placed 
where the public mind will rest in the belief that it 
is in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I 
desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is 

25 not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, 
made this government part slave and part free. 
Understand the sense in which he puts it. He 
assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within 
itself, — was introduced by the framers of the Con- 

30 stitution. The exact truth is, that they found the 
institution existing among us, and they left it as 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY l8s 

they found it. But in making the government they 
left this institution with many clear marks of dis- 
approbation upon it. They found slavery among 
them, and they left it among them because of the 
difficulty — the absolute impossibility — of its imme- 5 
diate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me 
why we cannot let it remain part slave and part 
free, as the fathers of the government made it, he 
asks a question based upon an assumption which is 
itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask lo 
him the question, when the policy that the fathers 
of the government had adopted in relation to this 
element among us was the best policy in the world, 
the only wise policy, the only policy that we can 
ever safely continue upon, that will ever give us ^5 
peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all 
and becomes a national institution, — / turn upon 
him and ask him zvhy he could not leave it alone. 
I turn and ask him why he was driven to the neces- 
sity of introducing a new policy in regard to it. 20 
He has himself said he introduced a new policy. 
He said so in his speech on the 22d of March of 
the present year, 1858. I ask him why he could 
not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I ask, 
too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall ^^ 
not again place this institution upon the basis on 
which the fathers left it. I ask you, when he infers 
that I am in favor of setting the Free and Slave 
States at war, when the institution was placed in 
that attitude by those who made the Constitution, 3° 
did they make any war? If we had no war out of it 



i86 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief 
that we shall have war out of it if we return to that 
policy? Have we had any peace upon this matter 
springing from any other basis? I maintain that 
5 we have not. I have proposed nothing more than 
a return to the policy of the fathers. 

I confess, when I propose a certain measure of 
policy, it is not enough for me that I do not intend 
anything evil in the result, but it is incumbent on 

lo me to show that it has not a tendency to that result. 
I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I 
have not only made the declaration that I do not 
mean to produce a conflict between the States, but 
I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think 

15 I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I pro- 
pose nothing but what has a most peaceful tendency. 
The quotation that I happened to make in that 
Springfield speech, that " a house divided against 
itself cannot stand," and which has proved so offen- 

20 sive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same 
thing. He tries to show that variety in the domes- 
tic institutions of the different States is necessary 
and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have no 
controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I 

25 shall very readily agree with him that it would be 
foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law 
here in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, 
because they have a cranberry law in Indiana, 
where they have cranberries. I should insist that 

^^ It would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to 
Virginia the right to enact oyster laws, where they 



MR, LINCOLN'S REPLY 187 

have oysters, because we want no such laws here. 
I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Doug- 
las or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and 
climate and face of the country, and consequent 
variety in the industrial pursuits and productions of 5 
a country, require systems of law conforming to 
this variety in the natural features of the country. 
I understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if 
we here raise a barrel of flour more than we want, 
and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sugar more 10 
than they want, it is of mutual advantage to ex- 
change. That produces commerce, brings us 
together, and makes us better friends. We like one 
another the more for it. And I understand as well 
as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these 15 
mutual accommodations are the cements which 
bind together the different parts of this Union ; 
that instead of being a thing to '* divide the house," 
— figuratively expressing the Union, — they tend to 
sustain it; they are the props of the house, tending 20 
always to hold it up. 

But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there 
is any parallel between these things and this insti- 
tution of slavery? I do not see that there is any 
parallel at all between them. Consider it. When 25 
have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst our- 
selves about the cranberry laws of Indiana, or the 
oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of 
Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, 
and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels 30 
over these things? When have we had perfect 



i88 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

peace in regard to this thing which I say is an ele- 
ment of discord in this Union? We have some- 
times had peace, but when was it? It was when 
the institution of slavery remained quiet where it 

5 was. We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever 
it has made a struggle to spread itself where it was 
not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak in 
thunder-tones, telling us that the policy which has 
given peace to the country heretofore, being re- 

lo turned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again. 
You may say, and Judge Douglas has intimated 
the same thing, that all this difficulty in regard to 
the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of 
office-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians. 

^5 He thinks we want to get " his place," I suppose. 
I agree that there are office-seekers amongst us. The 
Bible says somewhere that we are desperately sel- 
fish. I think we would have discovered that fact 
without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any 

20 less so than the average of men, but I do claim that 
I am not more selfish than Judge Douglas. 

But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation 
we have in regard to this institution of slavery 
springs from office-seeking, from the mere ambi- 

25 tion of politicians? Is that the truth? How many 
times have we had danger from this question? Go 
back to the day of the Missouri Compromise. Go 
back to the Nullification question, at the bottom of 
which lay this same slavery question. Go back to 

30 the time of the Annexation of Texas. Go back to 
the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 189 

You will find that every time, with the single excep- 
tion of the Nullification question, they sprung from 
an endeavor to spread this institution. There never 
was a party in the history of this country, and there 
probably never will be, of sufficient strength to dis- 5 
turb the general peace of the country. Parties 
themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor 
questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties them- 
selves. But does not this question make a disturb- 
ance outside of political circles? Does it not enter 10 
into the churches and rend them asunder? What 
divided the great Methodist Church into two parts. 
North and South? What has raised this constant 
disturbance in every Presbyterian General Assem- 
bly that meets? What disturbed the Unitarian 
Church in this very city two years ago? What has 15 
jarred and shaken the great American Tract Soci- 
ety recently, not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it 
in the end? Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated 
power that somehow operates on the minds of men, 
exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of 20 
society, — in politics, in religion, in literature, in 
morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is 
this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible 
power, which for fifty years has shaken the govern- 
ment and agitated the people, to be stilled and 25 
subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly 
simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it? 
If you will get everybody else to stop talking about 
it, I assure you I will quit before they have half 
done so. But where is the philosophy or states- 3o 



190 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

manship which assumes that you can quiet that 
disturbing element in our society which has dis- 
turbed us for more than half a century, which has 
been the only serious danger that has threatened 
5 our institutions, — I say, where is the philosophy or 
the statesmanship based on the assumption that we 
are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind 
is all at once to cease being agitated by it? Yet 
this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is 

itj advocating, — that we are to care nothing about it! 
I ask you if it is not a false philosophy. Is it not 
a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a 
system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing 
about the very thing that everybody does care the 

15 most about? — a thing which all experience has 

sl;iown we care a very great deal about? 
^^/ The Judge alludes very often in the course of 
his remarks to the exclusive right which the States 
have to decide the whole thing for themselves. I 

20 agree with him very readily that the different States 
have that right. He is but fighting a man of straw 
when he assumes that I am contending against the 
right of the States to do as they please about it. 
Our controversy with him is in regard to the new 

25 Territories. We agree that when the States come 
in as States they have the right and the power to 
do as they please. We have no power as citizens 
of the Free States, or in our Federal capacity as 
members of the Federal Union through the Gen- 

30 eral Government, to disturb slavery in the States 
where it exists. We profess constantly that we 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 191 

have no more inclination than belief in the power 
of the government to disturb it; yet we are driven 
constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption 
that we are warring upon the rights of the States. 
What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall 5 
be kept free from it while in the Territorial condi- 
tion. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no 
interest in them, — that we have no right whatever 
to interfere. I think we have some interest. I 
think that as white men we have. Do we not wish 10 
for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so 
express myself? Do we not feel an interest in getting 
to that outlet with such institutions as we would 
like to have prevail there? If you go to the Terri- 
tory opposed to slavery, and another man comes 15 
upon the same ground with his slave, upon the 
assumption that the things are equal, it turns out 
that he has the equal right all his way, and you 
have no part of it your way. If he goes in and 
makes it a Slave Territory, and by consequence a 20 
Slave State, is it not time that those who desire to 
have it a Free State were on equal ground? Let 
me suggest it in a different way. How many Dem- 
ocrats are there about here ["A thousand"] who 
have left Slave States and come into the Free State 25 
of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery? 
[Another voice: " A thousand and one."] I reckon 
there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if 
the policy you are now advocating had prevailed 
when this country was in a Territorial condition, 30 
where would you have gone to get rid of it ? Where 



192 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

would you have found your Free State or Territory 
to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the 
people in this place shall desire to find new homes, 
if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will 
5 they find the place to go to ? 

Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this 
question as to whether there is a right or wrong in 
enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new 
Territories being in such a condition that white 

1° men may find a home, — may find some spot where 
they can better their condition; where they can 
settle upon new soil and better their condition in 
life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say 
it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who 

^5 are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white 
people everywhere, the world over, — in which 
Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men 
from all the world, may find new homes and better 
their conditions in life. 

^^ I have stated upon former occasions, and I may 
as well state again, what I understand to be the 
real issue in this controversy between Judge Doug- 
las and myself. On the point of my wanting to 
make war between the Free and the Slave States, 

^5 there has been no issue between us. So, too, when 
he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a per- 
fect social and political equality between the white 
and black races. These are false issues, upon which 
Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. 

30 There is no foundation in truth for the charge that 
I maintain either of these propositions. The real 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 193 

issue in this controversy — the one pressing upon 
every mind — is the sentiment on the part of one 
class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a 
tvrong, and of another class that does not look upon 
it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the 5 
institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is 
the sentiment of the Republican party. It is the 
sentiment around which all their actions, all their 
arguments, circle, from which all their propositions 
radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social, lo 
and political wrong; and while they contemplate it 
as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its 
actual existence among us, and the difficulties of 
getting rid of it in any satisfactory way and to all 
the constitutional obligations thrown about it. Yet, 15 
having a due regard for these, they desire a policy 
in regard to it that looks to its not creating any 
more danger. They insist that it should, as far as 
may be, he treated as a wrong; and one of the 
methods of treating it as a wrong is to make pro- 20 
vision that it shall grozv no larger. They also desire 
a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at 
some time, as being wrong. These are the views 
they entertain in regard to it as I understand them ; 
and all their sentiments, all their arguments and 25 
propositions, are brought within this range. I have 
said, and I repeat it here, that if there be a man 
amongst us who does not think that the institution 
of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of 
which I have spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not 3© 
to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us 



194 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard 
its actual presence amongst us and the difficulty of 
getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and 
to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown 
5 about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our plat- 
form. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical . 
action. He is not placed properly with us. ^./^ 

On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and 
limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has any- 

i<> thing ever threatened the existence of this Union 
cave and except this very institution of slavery? 
What is it that we hold most dear amongst us ? Our 
own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threat- 
ened our liberty and prosperity, save and except 

15 this institution of slavery ? If this is true, how do 
you propose to improve the condition of things by 
enlarging slavery, — ^by spreading it out and making 
it bigger? You may have a wen or cancer upon 
your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you 

20 bleed to death ; but surely it is no way to cure it, to 
engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That 
is no proper way of treating what you regard a 
wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with 
it as a wrong, — restricting the spread of it, and not 

-3 allowing it to go into new countries where it has not 
already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old- 
fashioned way, the way in which the fathers them- 
selves set us the example. 

On the other hand, I have said there is a senti- 

3C' ment which treats it as not being wrong. That is 
the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean 



I 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 195 

to say that every man who stands within that range 
positively asserts that it is right. That class will 
include all who positively assert that it is right, and 
all who, like Judge Douglas, treat- it as indifferent, 
and do not say it is either right or wrong. These 5 
two classes of men fall within the general class of 
those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if 
there be among you anybody who supposes that he, 
as a Democrat, can consider himself '' as much 
opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to 10 
reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. 
What other thing that you consider as a wrong do 
you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you 
say it is wrong, hut your leader never does, and you 
quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. 15 
Although you pretend to say so yourself, you can 
find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You 
must not say anything about it in the Free States, 
because it is not here. You must not say anything 
about it in the Slave States, because it is there. You 20 
must not say anything about in the pulpit, because 
that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You 
must not say anything about it in politics, because 
that will disturb the security of " my place." 
There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, 25 
although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, 
finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that 
if the people of the Slave States should adopt a sys- 
tem of gradual emancipation on the slavery ques- 
tion, you would be in favor of it. You would be in 30 
favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right 



196 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But 
you are deceiving yourself. You all know that 
Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. 
Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Mis- 
j" souri. They fought as valiantly as they could for 
the system of gradual emancipation which you pre- 
tend you would be glad to see succeed. Now, I will 
bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were 
beaten, and when the news came over here, you 

lo threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy. 
More than that, take all the argument made in favor 
of the system you have proposed, and it carefully 
excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in 
the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain 

15 that policy carefully excluded it. Even here to-day 
you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I 
uttered a wish that it might some time come to an 
end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished 
every slave in the United States was in the country 

20 of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending 
to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it 
might some time, in some peaceful way, come to an 
end. The Democratic policy in regard to that insti- 
tution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slight- 

25 est hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try 
it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says 
he " don't care whether it is voted up or voted 
down " in the Territories. I do not care myself, in 
dealing with that expression, whether it is intended 

3o to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the 
subject, or only of the national policy he desires to 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 197 

have established. It is alike valuable for my pur- 
pose. Any man can say that who does not see any- 
thing wrong in slavery ; but no man can logically 
say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man 
can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is 5 
voted up or voted down. He may say he don't care 
whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, 
but he must logically have a choice between a right 
thing and a wrong thing. He contends that what- 
ever community wants slaves has a right to have 10 
them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if 
it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to 
do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, 
slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, 
like other property. This is strictly logical if there 15 
is no difference between it and other property. If it 
and other property are equal, his argument is entirely 
logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the 
other right, there is no use to institute a comparison 
between right and wrong. You may turn over 20 
everything in the Democratic policy from beginning 
to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute 
book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott deci- 
sion, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the 
shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments, — it 25 
everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is 
anything wrong in it. 

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will 
continue in this country, when these poor tongues 
of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is 30 
the eternal struggle between these two principles — 



198 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

right and wrong — throughout the world. They are 
the two principles that have stood face to face from 
the beginning of time, and will ever continue to 
struggle. The one is the common right of human- 

5 ity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is 
the same principle in whatever shape it develops 
itself. It is the same spirit that says : " You w^ork 
and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter 
in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of 

lo a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own 
nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from 
one race of men as an apology for enslaving another 
race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad 
to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express 

15 it here, to Judge Douglas, — that he looks to no end 
of the institution of slavery. That will help the 
people to see where the struggle really is. It will 
hereafter place with us all men who really do wish 
the wrong may have an end. And w^henever we can 

20 get rid of the fog which obscures the real question, 
when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to 
avow a policy looking to its perpetuation, — we can 
get out from among that class of men and bring 
them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. 

25 Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end 
will be its '' ultimate extinction." Whenever the 
issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous mat- 
ter thrown out so that men can fairly see the real 
difference between the parties, this controversy will 

30 soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably, too. 
There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 199 

again where the wisest and best men of the world 
placed it. Brooks, of South Carolina, once declared 
that when this Constitution was framed its framers 
did not look to the institution existing until his day. 
When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is 5 
fully borne out by the history of the times. But he 
also said they were better and wiser men than the 
men of these days ; yet the men of these d-ays had 
experience which they had not, and by the inven- 
tion of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this 10 
country that slavery should be perpetual. I now 
say that, willingly or unwillingly, purposely or with- 
out purpose. Judge Douglas has been the most 
prominent instrument in changing the position of 
the institution of slavery which the fathers of the 15 
government expected to come to an end ere this, — 
and putting it upon Brooks s cotton-gin basis; 
placing it where he openly confesses he has no 
desire there shall ever be an end of it. 

I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will 20 
employ it in saying something about this argument 
Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred 
Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can 
still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I 
ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas con- 25 
stantly said, before the decision, that whether they 
could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. 
But after the court had made the decision he vir- 
tually says it is not a question for the Supreme 
Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells 30 
us they can exclude it? He says it needs "police 



200 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

regulation," and that admits of " unfriendly legis- 
lation." Although it is a right established by the 
Constitution of the United States to take a slave into 
a Territory of the United States and hold him as 
5 property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will 
give friendly legislation, and, more especially, if 
they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can prac- 
tically exclude him. Now, without meeting this 
proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the 

lo real constitutional obligation. Let me take the gen- 
tleman who looks me in the face before me, and let 
us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial 
Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to 
swear that he will support the Constitution of the 

'5 United States. His neighbor by his side in the Ter- 
ritory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to 
enable him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can 
he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs 
for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his 

2o favor in the Constitution of the United States which 
he has sworn to support ? Can he withhold it with- 
out violating his oath? And, more especially, can 
he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? 
Why, this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Con- 

25 stitution of the United States! There has never 
been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the 
mouth of any respectable man on earth. I do not 
believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a 
Territory of the United States. I believe the deci- 

30 sion was improperly made and I go for reversing 
it. Judge Douglas is furious against those Vvho go 



MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 201 

for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating 
it out of all force while the law itself stands. I 
repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doc- 
trine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. 

I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) be- 5 
lieve that people of the Southern States are entitled 
to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law, — that is a 
right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be 
made available to them without Congressional leg- 
islation. In the Judge's language, it is a "barren 10 
right," which needs legislation before it can become 
efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is 
guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I 
agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, — 
and that not that we like the institution of slavery. 15 
We profess to have no taste for running and catch- 
ing niggers, — at least, I profess no taste for that 
job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugi- 
tive Slave law? Because I do not understand that 
the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can 20 
be supported without it. And if I believed that the 
right to hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed 
in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugi- 
tives, I should be bound to give it the legislation 
necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny 25 
his obligation to give the necessary legislation to 
support slavery in a Territory, who believes it is a 
constitutional right to have it there. No man can, 
who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to 
deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to 30 
enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the 



202 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say 
if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right 
to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitu- 
tional right with the right of a slaveholder to have 
5 his runaway returned. No one can show the dis- 
tinction between them. The one is express, so that 
we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in 
the Constitution, so that he who believes the deci- 
sion to be correct believes in the right. And the 

lo man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in 
spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be 
driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnish- 
ing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny 
the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the 

15 power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the 
slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know 
how such an argument may strike a popular assem- 
bly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body 
of men whose minds are educated to estimating evi- 

20 dence and reasoning, and. show that there is an iota 
of difference between the constitutional right to 
reclaim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to 
hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott 
decision is correct. I defy any man to make an 

25 argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to 
deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold a slave in 
a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, 
breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nul- 
lifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not 

30 such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, 
after all. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 203 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 

Mr. Lincoln has concluded his remarks by say- 
ing that there is not such an AboHtionist as I am in 5 
all America. If he could make the Abolitionists of 
Illinois believe that, he would not have much show 
for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists 
believe the truth of that statement, and his political 
back is broken. 10 

His first criticism upon me is the expression of 
his hope that the war of the Administration will be 
prosecuted against me and the Democratic party of 
this State with vigor. He wants that war prose- 
cuted with vigor ; I have no doubt of it. His hopes of 15 
success and the hopes of his party depend solely upon 
it. They have no chance of destroying the De- 
mocracy of this State except by the aid of Federal 
patronage. He has all the Federal office-holders 
here as his allies, running separate tickets against the 20 
Democracy to divide the party, although the leaders 
all intend to vote directly the Abolition ticket, and 
only leave the greenhorns to vote this separate 
ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp. 
There is something really refreshing in the thought 25 
that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of prosecuting one war 
vigorously. It is the first war that I ever knew him 
to be in favor of prosecuting. It is the first war 
that I ever knew him to believe to be just or con- 
stitutional. When the Mexican war was being 3° 
waged,^and the American army was surrounded by 



204 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

the enemy in Mexico, he thought that war was 
unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He 
thought it was not commenced on the right spot. 
When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in 
5 the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks 
ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had 
charged him with voting against supplies for the 
Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, 
and swore that he never voted against the supplies ; 

lo that it was a slander; and caught hold of Ficklin, 
who sat on the stand, and said, " Here, Ficklin, tell 
the people that it is a lie." Well, Fickhn, who had 
served in Congress with him, stood up and told them 
all that he recollected about it. It was that when 

15 George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought for- 
ward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional, 
unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for 
it. " Yes," said Lincoln, *' I did." Thus he confessed 
that he voted that the war was wrong, that our 

20 country was in the wrong, and consequently that the 
Mexicans were in the right ; but charged that I had 
slandered him by saying that he voted against the 
supplies. I never charged him with voting against 
the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was 

25 not in Congress when they were voted. The war was 
commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on 
that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions 
of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. 
During the same session we voted more men and 

30 more money, and at the next session we voted more 
men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lin- 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 205 

coin entered Congress we had enough men and 
enough money to carry on the war, and had no 
occasion to vote for any more. When he got into 
the House, being opposed to the war, and not being 
able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone 5 
forward, all he could do was to follow the lead of 
Corwin, and prove that the war was not begun on 
the right spot, and that it was unconstitutional, un- 
necessary, and wrong. Remember, too, that this he 
did after the war had been begun. It is one thing 10 
to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another 
and very different thing to take sides with the 
enemy against your own country after the war has 
been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the 
time, many battles had been fought; our citizens, 15 
who were defending the honor of their country's 
flag, were surrounded by the daggers, the guns, and 
the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Corwin 
made his speech in which he declared that the Amer- 
ican soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans 20 
with bloody hands and hospitable graves; then it 
was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House 
of Representatives that the war was unconstitu- 
tional and unjust; and Ashmun's resolution, Cor- 
win 's speech, and Lincoln's vote were sent to Mex- 25 
ico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to 
prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the 
Congress of the United States who were doing all 
in their power to aid them. That a man who takes 
sides with the common enemy against his own 30 
country in time of war should rejoice in a war being 



2o6 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

made on me now, is very natural. And, in m> 

opinion, no other kind of a man would rejoice in itj 

Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about 

his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that 

5 there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in 
this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him 
to talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for 
him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much] 
about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition 

lo districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay 
Whig was he? Have you read General Singleton's 
speech at Jacksonville? You know that General 
Singleton was for twenty-five years the confidential 
friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that 

15 in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention of this 
State was in session, the Whig members were in- 
vited to a Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's 
brother-in-law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to 
throw Henry Clay overboard and take up General 

20 Taylor in his place, giving as his reason that, if the 
Whigs did not take up General Taylor, the Demo- 
crats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln in that 
speech urged as another reason for throwing Henry 
Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought 

25 long enough for principle, and ought to begin to 
fight for success. Singleton also testified that Lin- 
coln's speech did not have the eflFect of cutting 
Clay's throat, and that he (Singleton) and others 
withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He fur- 

30 ther states that when they got ;to Philadelphia to 
attend the National Convention of the Whig party. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 207 

that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy 
of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) 
out of the Convention because he insisted on voting 
for Clay, and Lincoln was determined to have Tay- 
lor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very 5 
great joy when he found the mangled remains of 
the murdered Whig statesman lying cold before 
him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old 
line Clay Whig! General Singleton testifies to the 
facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has 10 
been printed and circulated broadcast over the State 
for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. 
Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay 
Whig. 

What part of Henry Clay's policy did Lincoln 15 
ever advocate. He was in Congress in 1848-9, 
when the Wilmot Proviso warfare disturbed the 
peace and harmony of the country, until it shook the 
foundation of the Republic from its centre to its 
circumference. It was that agitation that brought 20 
Clay forth from his retirement at Ashland again to 
occupy his seat in the Senate of the United States, 
to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and 
experience, and the renown of his name, do some- 
thing to restore peace and quiet to a disturbed coun- 25 
try. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had 
to be called upon to quell? I have heard Lincoln 
boast that he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot 
Proviso, and that he would have voted as many 
times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in con- 30 
nection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and other 



2o8 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

Abolitionists, who got up that strife that I helped 
Clay to put down. Henry Clay came back to the 
Senate in 1849, and saw that he must do something 
to restore peace to the country. The Union Whigs 
5 and the Union Democrats welcomed him, the 
moment he arrived, as the man for the occasion. 
We believed that he, of all men on earth, had been 
preserved by Divine Providence to guide us out of 
our difficulties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay 

10 then, as you Whigs in Nullification time rallied 

under the banner of old Jackson, forgetting party 

when the country was in danger, in order that we 

might have a country first, and parties afterward. 

And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you 

^5 that the slavery question was the only thing that 
ever disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union. 
Did not Nullification once raise its head and disturb 
the peace of this Union in 1832? Was that the 
slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion 

20 raise its monster head during the last war with 
Great Britain? Was that the slavery question, Mr. 
Lincoln? The peace of this country has been dis- 
turbed three times, once during the war with Great 
Britain, once on the tariff question, and once on the 

25 slavery question. His argument therefore that 
slavery is the only question that has ever created dis- 
sension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true 
that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery 
question for the purpose of sectional strife. He 

30 admits that in regard to all things else, the principle 
that I advocate, making each State and Territory 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 20O 

free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He 
instances the cranberry laws and the oyster laws, 
and he might have gone through the whole list with 
tlie same effect. I say that all these laws arc local 
and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns 5 
should be left to each State and each Territory to 
manage for itself. If agitators would acquiesce in 
that principle, there never w^ould be any danger to 
the peace and harmony of the Union. 

Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by 10 
attacking the truth of my proposition, that our 
fathers made this government divided into Free and 
Slave States, recognizing the right of each to decide 
all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus 
m.ake it? It is true that they did not establish 15 
slavery in any of the States, or abolish it in any of 
them; but finding thirteen States, twelve of which 
were slave and one free, they agreed to form a gov- 
ernment uniting them together as they stood, divided 
into Free and Slave States, and to guarantee forever 20 
to each State the right to do as it pleased on the 
slavery question. Having thus made the govern- 
ment, and conferred this right upon each State for- 
ever, I assert that this government can exist as they 
made it, divided into Free and Slave States, if any 25 
one State chooses to retain slavery. He says that 
he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be 
abolished everywhere. I look forward to a time 
when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. 
If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my 30 
business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slav- 



210 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

ery, it is its own business, — not mine. I care more 
for the great principle of self-government, the right 
of the people to rule, than I do for all the negroes 
in Christendom. I would not endanger the per- 
5 petuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great 
inalienable rights of the white men, for all the 
negroes that ever existed. Hence, I say, let us 
maintain this government on the principles that our 
fathers made it on, recognizing the right of each 

lo State to keep slavery as long as its people determine, 
or to abolish it when they please. But Mr. Lincoln 
says that when our fathers made this government 
they did not look forward to the state of things now 
existing, and therefore he thinks the doctrine was 

15 wrong; and he quotes Brooks, of South Carolina, to 
prove that- our fathers then thought that probably 
slavery would be abolished by each State acting for 
itself before this time. Suppose they did ; suppose 
they did not foresee what has occurred, — does that 

20 change the principles of our government? They 
did not probably foresee the telegraph that transmits 
intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the 
railroads that now form the bonds of union between 
the different States, or the thousand mechanical 

25 inventions that have elevated mankind. But do 
these things change the principles of the govern- 
ment? Our fathers, I say, made this government 
on the principle of the right of each State to do as 
it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the 

30 Constitution, and allowed the people of each to 
apply to every new change of circumstances such 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 211 

remedy as they may see fit to improve their con- 
dition. This right they have for all time to come. 
Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he does not 
at all desire to interfere with slavery in the States 
where it exists, nor does his party. I expected him 5 
to say that down here. Let me ask him, then, how 
he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate 
extinction everywhere, if he does not intend to inter- 
fere with it in the States where it exists? He says 
that he will prohibit it in all Territories, and the 10 
inference is, then, that unless they make Free States 
out of them he will keep them out of the Union ; for, 
mark you, he did not say whether or not he would 
vote to admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her 
people might apply (he forgot that, as usual, etc.) ; 15 
he did not say whether or not he was in favor of 
bringing the Territories now in existence into the 
Union on the principle of Clay's Compromise Meas- 
ures on the slavery question. I told you that he 
would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery 20 
in all the Territories, and thus force them all to 
become Free States, surrounding the Slave States 
with a cordon of Free States, and hemming them in, 
keeping the slaves confined to their present limits 
whilst they go on multiplying, until the soil on 25 
which they live will no longer feed them, and he 
i will thus be able to put slavery in a course of ulti- 
mate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish 
slavery in the Southern States as the French gen- 
eral exterminated the Algerines when he smoked 30 
them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by 



212 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

surrounding the Slave States, hemming in the slaves, 
and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a 
fox out of his hole. He intends to do that in the 
nam-e of humanity and Christianity, in order that; 
5 v^^e may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed 
upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln 
makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the 
moral sense of justice and to the Christian feeling 
of the community to sustain him. He says that any \ 

lo man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the 
position of the king who claimed to govern by divine 1 
right. Let us examine for a moment and see what: 
principle it was tnat overthrew the divine right of 
George the Third to govern us. Did not these Col- 

15 onies rebel because the British Parliament had no 
right to pass laws concerning our property and 
domestic and private institutions without our con- 
sent? We demanded that the British Government 
should not pass such laws unless they gave us 

20 representation in the body passing them ; and this 
the British Government insisting on doing, we went 
to war, on the prmciple that the Home Government 
should not control and govern distant colonies with- 
out giving them a representation. Now, Mr. Lin- 

25 coin proposes to govern the Territories without giv- 
ing them a representation, and calls on Congress 
to pass laws controlling their property and domes- 
tic concerns without their consent and against their 
will. Thus, he asserts for his party the identical 

30 principle asserted by George HL and the Tories of 
the Revolution. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 213 

I ask you to look into these things and then tell 
me whether the Democracy or the Abolitionists are 
right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like 
those of a State (I use the language of Mr. 
Buchanan in his Letter of Acceptance), have the 5 
right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall 
or shall not exist within their limits. The point 
upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opin- 
ion is simply this, that slaves, being property, stand 
on an equal footing with other property, and conse- 10 
quently that the owner has the same right to carry 
that property into a Territory that he has any other, 
subject to the same conditions. Suppose that one 
of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred 
thousand dollars' worth of liquors to Kansas. He 15 
has a right to go there, under that decision ; but 
when he gets there he finds the Maine liquor law in 
force, and what can he do with his property after 
he gets it there ? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it ; 
it is subject to the local law, and that law is against 20 
him, and the best thing he can do with it is to bring 
it back into Missouri or Illinois and sell it. If you 
take negroes to Kansas, as Colonel Jefferson Davis 
said in his Bangor speech, from which I have quoted 
to-day, you must take them there subject to the 25 
local law. If the people want the institution of 
slavery, they will protect and encourage it ; but if 
they do not want it they will withhold that 
protection, and the absence of local legislation pro- 
tecting slavery excludes it as completely as a ,^0 
positive prohibition. You slaveholders of Missouri 



214 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON 

might as well understand what you know practi- 
cally, that you cannot carry slavery where the peo- 
ple do not want it. All you have a right to ask is 
that the people shall do as they please : if they want 
5 slavery, let them have it; if they do not want it, 
allow them to refuse to encourage it. 

My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only 
live up to this great fundamental principle, there 
will be peace between the North and the South. 

lo Mr. Lincoln admits that, under the Constitution, on 
all domestic questions, except slavery, we ought not 
to interfere with the people of each State. What 
right have we to interfere with the people of each 
State. What right have we to interfere with slav- 

15 ery any more than we have to interfere with any 
other question? He says that this slavery question 
is now the bone of contention. Why? Simply 
because agitators have combined in all the Free 
States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators 

20 in the States should combine in one half of the 
Union to make war upon the railroad system of the 
other half? They would thus be driven to the same 
sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war 
upon any other particular institution of the opposite 

25 section, and the samic strife is produced. The only 
remedy and safety is that we shall stand by the Con- 
stitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as 
they are passed, while they stand the proper test, 
and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and 

3o the constituted authorities. 



Xtncoln's Tl^Drcss at Cooper ITnBtltute 

[February 27, i860] 

Mr. President and Fellow-citizens of New 
York : The facts with which I shall deal this even- 
ing are mainly old and familiar; nor is there any- 5 
thing new in the general use I shall make of them. 
If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode 
of presenting the facts, and the inferences and obser- 
vations following that presentation. In his speech 
last Autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the 10 
New York " Times," Senator Douglas said : 

" Our fathers, when they framed the government 
under which we live, understood this question just as 
well, and even better, than we do now." 

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for 15 
this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes 
a precise and an agreed starting-point for a dis- 
cussion between Republicans and that wing of the 
Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply 
leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding 20 
those fathers had of the question mentioned? 

What is the frame of government under which 
we live ? The answer must be, " The Constitution 
of the United States." That Constitution consists 
of the original, framed in 1787, and under which the 25 

215 



2i6 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

present government first went into operation, and 
twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first 
ten of which were framed in 1789. 

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitu- 
5 tion? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the 
original instrument may be fairly called our fathers 
who framed that part of the present government. 
It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and 
it is altogether true to say they fairly represented 

10 the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at 
that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly 
all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be 
repeated. 

I take these " thirty-nine," for the present, as 

15 being " our fathers who framed the government 

under which we live." What is the question which, 

according to the text, those fathers understood 

** just as well, and even better, than we do now " ? 

It is this: Does the proper division of local from 

20 Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, 
forbid our Federal Government to control as to 
slavery in our Federal Territories? 

Upon this. Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, 
and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and 

25 denial form an issue ; and this issue — this question — 
is precisely what the text declares our fathers under- 
stood "better than we." Let us now inquire 
whether the " thirty-nine," or any of them, ever 
acted upon this question ; and if they did, how they 

30 acted upon it — how they expressed that better 
understanding. In 1784, three years before the Con- 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 217 

stitution, the United States then owning the North- 
western Territory, and no other, the Congress of 
the Confederation had before them the question 
of prohibiting slavery in that Territory, and four of 
the " thirty-nine " who afterward framed the Con- 5 
stitution were in that Congress, and voted on that 
question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mif- 
flin, and Hugh WiUiamson voted for the prohibition, 
thus showing that, in their understanding, no Hnc 
dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything 10 
else, properly forbade the Federal Government to 
control as to slavery in Federal territory. The other 
of the four, James McHenry, voted against the pro- 
hibition, showing that for some cause he thought 
it improper to vote for it. ^5 

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while 
tlie convention was in session framing it, and while 
the Northwestern Territory still was the only Terri- 
tory owned by the United States, the same question 
of prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came 20 
before the Congress of the Confederation ; and two 
more of the '' thirty-nine " who afterward signed the 
Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the 
question. They were William Blount and William 
Few ; and they both voted for the prohibition — thus 25 
showing that in their understanding no line dividing 
local from Federal authority, nor anything else, 
properly forbade the Federal Government to control 
as to slavery in Federal territory. This time the 
prohibition became a law, being part of what is now 30 
well known as the Ordinance of '87, 



2i8 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

The question of Federal control of slavery in the 
Territories seems not to have been directly before 
the convention which framed the original Constitu- 
tion; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty- 

5 nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instru- 
ment, expressed any opinion on that precise question. 
In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the 
Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the ordi- 
nance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in 

10 the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act 
was reported by one of the *' thirty-nine " — Thomas 
Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Rep- 
resentatives from Pennsylvania. It went through 
all its stages without a word of opposition, and 

15 finally passed both branches without ayes and nays, 
w^hich is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In 
this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine 
fathers who framed the original Constitution. They 
were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman, Wm. S. 

20 Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. 
Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, 
Rufus King, William Patterson, George Clymer, 
Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Dan- 
iel Carroll, and James Madison. 

25 This shows that, in their understanding, no line 
dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything 
in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to 
prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both 
their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to 

30 support the Constitution, would have constrained 
them to oppose the prohibition. 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 219 

Again, George Washington, another of the 
"thirty-nine," was then President of the United 
States, and as such approved and signed the bill, 
thus completing its validity as a law, and thus show- 
ing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local 5 
from Federal authority, nor anything in the Con- 
stitution, forbade the Federal Government to con- 
trol as to slavery in Federal territory. 

No great while after the adoption of the original 
Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal 10 
Government the country now constituting the State 
of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded 
that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi 
and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was 
made a condition by the ceding States that the Fed- 15 
eral government should not prohibit slavery in the 
ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actu- 
ally in the ceded country. Under these circum- 
stances, Congress, on taking charge of these 
countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within 20 
them. But they did interfere with it — ^take con- 
trol of it — even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 
Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. 
In the act of organization they prohibited the 
bringing of slaves into the Territory from any place 25 
without the United States, by fine, and giving free- 
dom to slaves so brought. This act passed both 
branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In 
that Congress were three of the " thirty-nine " who 
framed the original Constitution. They were John 3° 
Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. 



220 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

They all probably voted for it. Certainly they 
would have placed their opposition to it upon record 
if, in their understanding, any line dividing local 
from Federal authority, or anything in the Consti- 
5 tution, properly for]3ade the Federal Government to 
control as to slavery in Federal Territory. 

In 1803 the Federal Government purchased the 
Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisi- 
tions came from certain of our own States; but 
10 this Louisiana country was acquired from a for- 
eign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial 
organization to that part of it which now constitutes 
the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within 
that part, was an old and comparatively large city. 
15 There were other considerable towns and settle- 
ments and slavery was extensively and thoroughly 
intermingled with the people. Congress did not, 
in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they 
did interfere with it — take control of it — in a more 
20 marked and extensive way than they did in the case 
of Mississippi. The substance of the provision 
therein made in relation to slaves was: 

1st. That no slave should be imported into the 
Territory from foreign parts. 
25 2d. That no slave should be carried into it who 
had been imported into the United States since the 
first day of May, 1798. 

3d. That no slave should be carried into it, 
except by the owner, and for his own use as a set- 
So tier; the penalty in all cases being a fine upon the 
violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 221 

This act also was passed without ayes or nays. 
In the Congress which passed it there were two of 
the " thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin 
and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of 
Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. 5 
They would not have allowed it to pass without 
recording their opposition to it if, in their under- 
standing, it violated either the line properly dividing- 
local from Federal authority, or any provision of 
the Constitution. 10 

In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri ques- 
tion. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in 
both branches of Congress, upon the various phases 
of the general question. Two of the '' thirty-nine " 
— Rufus King and Charles Pinckney — were mem- 15 
bers of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for 
slavery prohibition and against all compromises, 
while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slav- 
ery prohibition and against all compromises. By 
this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, 20 
no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor 
anything in the Constitution, was violated by Con- 
gress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory ; 
while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in 
his understanding, there was some sufficient reason 25 
for opposing such prohibition in that case. 

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of 
the " thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the 
direct issue, which I have been able to discover. 

To enumerate the persons who thus acted as 3<^< 
being four in 1*^84, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, 



222 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20, 
there would be thirty of them. But this would be 
counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William 
Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, 
5 and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true num- 
ber of those of the " thirty-nine " whom I have 
shown to have acted upon the question which, by 
the text, they understood better than we, is twenty- 
three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon 

i*^ it in any way. 

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our 
thirty-nine fathers " who framed the government 
under which we live," who have, upon their official 
responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon 

15 the very question which the text affirms they 
" understood just as well, and even better, than we 
do now " ; and twenty-one of them — a clear majority 
of the whole '* thirty-nine " — so acting upon it as 
to make them guilty of gross political impropriety 

20 and wilful perjury if, in their understanding, any 
proper division between local and Federal authority, 
or anything in the Constitution they had made 
themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Fed- 
eral Government to control as to slavery in the 

25 Federal Territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; 
and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions 
under such responsibility speak still louder. 

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congres- 
sional prohibition of slavery in the Federal Terri- 

30 tories, in the instances in which they acted upon 
the question. But for what reasons they so voted 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 223 

is not known. They may have done so because they 
thought a proper division of local from Federal 
authority, or some provision or principle of the 
Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, with- 
out any such question, have voted against the pro- 5 
hibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient 
grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to 
support the Constitution can conscientiously vote 
for what he understands to be an unconstitutional 
measure, however expedient he may think it ; but 10 
one may and ought to vote against a measure which 
he deems constitutional if, at the same time, he 
deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be 
unsafe to set down even the two who voted against 
the prohibition as having done so because, in their 15 
understanding, any proper division of local from 
Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, 
forbade the Federal Government to control as to 
slavery in Federal territory. 

The remaining sixteen of the " thirty-nine," so 20 
far as I have discovered, have left no record of 
their understanding upon the direct question of Fed- 
eral control of slavery in the Federal Territories. 
But there is much reason to believe that their under- 
standing upon that question would not have 25 
appeared different from that of their twenty-three 
compeers, had it been manifested at all. 

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, 
I have purposely omitted whatever understanding 
may have been manifested by any person, however 30 
distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who 



224 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

framed the original Constitution ; and, for the same 
reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding 
may have been manifested by any of the *' thirty- 
nine " even on any other phase of the general ques- 
5 tion of slavery. If we should look into their acts 
and declarations on those other phases, as the 
foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of 
slavery gerferally, it would appear to us that on the 
direct question of Federal control of slavery in 

lo Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted 
at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty- 
three did. Among that sixteen were several of the 
most noted anti-slavery men of those times — as Dr. 
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur 

15 Morris — while there was not one now known to 
have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rut- 
ledge, of South- Carolina. 

The sum of the whole is that of our thirty-nine 
fathers who framed the original Constitution, 

20 twenty-one — a clear majority of the whole — cer- 
tainly understood that no proper division of local 
from Federal authority, nor any part of the Con- 
stitution, forbade the Federal Government to con- 
trol slavery in the Federal Territories; while all 

25 the rest had probably the same understanding. 
Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our 
fathers who framed the original Constitution; and 
the text affirms that they understood the question 
" better than we." 

30 But, so far, I have been considering the under- 
standing of the question manifested by the framers 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 225 

of the original Constitution. In and by the original 
instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; 
and, as I have already stated, the present frame of 
" the government under which we live " consists of 
that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed 5 
and adopted since. Those who now insist that Fed- 
eral control of slavery in Federal Territories vio- 
lates the Constitution, point us to the provisions 
which they suppose it thus violates ; and, as I under- 
stand, they all fix upon provisions in these amenda- ic 
tory articles, and not in the original instrument. 
The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant 
themselves upon the fifth amendment, which pro- 
vides that no person shall be deprived of " life, lib- 
erty, or property without due process of law " ; while 15 
Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant 
themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing 
that " the powers not delegated to the United States 
by the Constitution " " are reserved to the States 
1 esi:)€ctively, or to the people." 20 

Now it so happens that these amendments were 
framed by the first Congress which sat under the 
Constitution — the identical Congress which passed 
the act, already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition 
of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only 25 
was it the same Congress, but they were the iden- 
tical, same individual men who, at the same session, 
and at the same time within the session, had under 
consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these 
constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting 30 
slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. 



226 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

The constitutional amendments were introduced 
before, and passed after the act enforcing the ordi- 
nance of '87 ; so that, during the whole pendency of 
the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional! 
5 amendments were also pending. 

The seventy-six members of that Congress, includ- 
ing sixteen of the framers of the original Constitu- 
tion, as before stated, were pre-eminently our 
fathers who framed that part of *' the government; 

10 under which we live " which is now claimed as for- 
bidding the Federal Government to control slavery 
in the Federal Territories. 

Is it not a little presumptuous in anyone at this 
day to affirm that the two things which that Con- 

15 gress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity 
at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with 
each other? And does not such affirmation become 
impudently absurd when coupled with the other 
affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who 

20 did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, under- 
stood whether they really were inconsistent better 
than we — better than he who affirms that they are 
inconsistent ? 

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine 

25 framers of the original Constitution, and the sev- 
enty-six members of the Congress which framed the 
amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly 
include those who may be fairly called " our fathers 
who framed the government under which we live." 

30 And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any 
one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 227 

his understanding, any proper division of local from 
Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, 
forbade the Federal Government to control as to 
slavery in the Federal Territories. I go a step fur- 
ther. I defy anyone to show that any living man 5 
in the world ever did, prior to the beginning of the 
present century (and I might almost say prior to 
the beginning of the last half of the present cen- 
tury), declare that, in his understanding, any proper 
division of local from Federal authority, or any part 10 
of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern- 
ment to control as to slavery in the Federal Terri- 
tories. To those who now so declare I give not 
only " our fathers who framed the government 
under which we live," but with them all other living 15 
men within the century in which it was framed, 
among whom to search, and they shall not be able 
to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with 
them. 

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being 20 
misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound 
to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. 
To do so would be to discard all the lights of cur- 
rent experience — to reject all progress, all improve- 
ment. What I do say is that if we would supplant 25 
the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, 
we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and 
argument so clear, that even their great authority, 
fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand ; and 
most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves 30 
declare they understood the question better than we. 



228 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

If any man at this day sincerely believes that a 
proper division of local from Federal authority, or 
any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal 
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal 
5 Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his 
position by all truthful evidence and fair argu- 
ment which he can. But he has no right to mislead 
others, who have less access to history, and less 
leisure to study it, into the false belief that '' our 

lo fathers who framed the government under which 
we live " were of the same opinion — thus substitut- 
ing falsehood and deception for truthful evidence 
and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely 
believes " our fathers who framed the government 

15 under which we live" used and applied principles, 
in other cases, which ought to have led them to 
understand that a proper division of local from 
Federal authority, or some part of the Constitution, 
forbids the Federal Government to control as to 

20 slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to 
say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the 
responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he 
understands their principles better than they did 
themselves; and especially should he not shirk that 

25 responsibility by asserting that they " understood 
the question just as well, and even better, than we 
do now." 

But enough ! Let all who believe that *' our 
fathers who framed the government under which 

30 we live understood this question just as well, and 
even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 229 

and act as they acted upon it. This is all Repub- 
licans ask — all Republicans desire — in relation to 
slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be 
again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to 
be tolerated and protected only because of and so 5 
far as its actual presence amongst us makes that tol- 
eration and protection a necessity. Let all the 
guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, 
but fully and fairly maintained. For this Repub- 
licans contend, and with this, so far as I know or 10 
believe, they will be content. 

And now, if they would listen — as I suppose they 
will not — I would address a few words to the 
Southern people. 

I would say to them : You consider yourselves a 15 
reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in 
the general qualities of reason and justice you are 
not inf'erior to any other people. Still, when you 
speak of us Republicans, you do so only to 
denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better 20 
than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates 
or murderers, but nothing like it to " Black Repub- 
licans." In all your contentions with one another, 
each of you deems an unconditional condemnation 
of *' Black Republicanism," as the first thing to be 25 
attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us 
seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, 
so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted 
to speak at all. Now can you or not be prevailed 
upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite 30 
just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward 



230 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

your charges and specifications, and then be patient 
long enough to hear us deny or justify. 

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That 
makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon 
5 you. You produce your proof; and what is it? 
Why, that our party has no existence in your sec- 
tion — gets no votes in your section. The fact is 
substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If 
it does, then in case we should, without change of 

lo principle, begin to get votes in your section, wx 
should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot 
escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to 
abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon 
find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall 

15 get votes in your section this very year. You will 
then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that 
your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that 
we get no votes in your section is a fact of your 
making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in 

20 that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains 
so until you show that we repel you by some wrong 
principle or practice. If we do repel you by any 
wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but 
this brings you to where you ought to have started 

25 — to a discussion of the right or wrong of our 
principle. If our principle, put in practice, would 
wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for 
any other object, then our principle, and we with it, 
are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced 

30 as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether 
our principle, put in practice, would wrong your 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 231 

section ; and so meet us as if it were possible that 
something may be said on your side. Do you accept 
the challenge ? No ! Then you really believe that 
the principle which " our fathers who framed the 
government under which we live " thought so 5 
clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and 
again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly 
wrong as to demand your condemnation without a 
moment's consideration. 

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the 10 
warning against sectional parties given by Wash- 
ington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight 
years before Washington g?ve that warning, he 
had, as President of the United States, approved and 
signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition 15 
of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which 
act embodied the policy of the government upon 
that subject up to and at the very moment he 
penned that warning; and about one year after he 
penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that 20 
prohibition a v/ise measure, expressing in the same 
connection his hope that we should at some time 
have a confederacy of free States. 

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectional- 
ism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that 25 
warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in 
our hands against you? Could Washington him- 
self speak, would he cast the blame of that section- 
alism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, 
who repudiate it? We respect that warning of 3^ 
Washington, and we commend it to you, together 



.^32 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

with his example pointing to the right application 
of it. 

But you say you are conservative — eminently 
conservative — while we are revolutionary, destruc- 
5 tive, or something of the sort. What is conserva- 
tism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, 
against the new and untried? We stick to, con- 
tend for, the identical old policy on the point in con- 
troversy which was adopted by " our fathers who 

lo framed the government under which we live " ; 
while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit 
upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting 
something new. True, you disagree among your- 
selves as to what that substitute shall be. You are 

15 divided on new propositions and plans, but you are 
unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old 
policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving 
the foreign slave-trade; some for a Congressional 
slave code for the Territories; some for Congress 

20 forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within 
their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the 
Territories through the judiciary; some for the 
*' gur-reat pur-rinciple " that " if one man would 
enslave another, no third man should object," fan- 

25 tastically called " popular sovereignty," but never a 
man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition 
of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the 
practice of " our fathers who framed the govern- 
ment under which we live." Not one of all your 

30 various plans can show a precedent or an advocate 
in the century within which our government origi- 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 233 

nated. Consider, then, whether your claim of con- 
servatism for yourselves, and your charge of 
destructiveness against us, are based on the most 
clear and stable foundations. 

Again, you say we have made the slavery ques- 5 
tion more prominent than it formerly was. We 
deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but 
we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, 
wdio discarded the old policy of the fathers. We 
resisted, and still resist, your innovation ; and thence 10 
comes the greater prominence of the question. 
Would you have that question reduced to its former 
proportions? Go back to that old policy. What 
has been will be again, under the same conditions. If 
you would have the peace of the old times, re-adopt 15 
the precepts and policy of the old times. 

You charge that we stir up insurrections among 
your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? 
Harper's Ferry ! John Brown ! ! John Brown was 
no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a 20 
single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. 
If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, 
you know it or you do not know it. If you do 
know it, you are inexcusable for not designating 
the man and proving the fact. If you do not know 25 
it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and espe- 
cially for persisting in the assertion after you have 
tried and failed to make the proof. You need not 
be told that persisting in a charge which one 
does not know to be true, is simply malicious 30 
slander. 



234 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly 
aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but 
still insist that our doctrines and declarations nec- 
essarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. 
5 We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declara- 
tion, which were not held to and made by " our 
fathers who framed the government under which 
we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation 
to this affair. When it occurred, some important 

JO State elections were near at hand, and you were in 
evident glee with the belief that, by charging the 
blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us 
in those elections. The elections came, and your 
expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every 

15 Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, 
your charge was a slander, and he was not much 
inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Repub- 
lican doctrines and declarations are accompanied 
with a continual protest against any interference 

20 whatever with your slaves, or with you about your 
slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to 
revolt. True, we do, in common with '' our fathers 
who framed the government under which we live," 
declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the 

2r slaves do not hear us declare even this. For any- 
thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know 
there is a Republican party. I believe they would 
not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrep- 
resentations of us in their hearing. In your polit- 

jo ical contests among yourselves each faction charges 
the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism ; 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 23S 

and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black 
RepubHcanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and 
thunder among the slaves. 

Slave insurrections are no more common now 
than they were before the Republican party was 5 
organized. What induced the Southampton insur- 
rection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least 
three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's 
Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic 
fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was '* got 10 
up by Black Republicanism." In the present state 
of things in the United States, I do not think a 
general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrec- 
tion is possible. The indispensable concert of 
action cannot be attained. The slaves have no 15 
means of rapid communication ; nor can incendiary 
freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive 
materials are everywhere in parcels; but there 
neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable 
connecting trains. 20 

Much is said by Southern people about the affec- 
tion of slaves for their masters and mistresses ; and 
a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an upris- 
ing could scarcely be devised and communicated to 
twenty individuals before some one of them, to save 25 
the life of a favorite master or mistress, would 
divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolu- 
tion in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case 
occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gun- 
powder plot of British history, though not connected 30 
with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only 



236 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet 
one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend betrayed 
the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted 
the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the 
5 kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the 
field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, 
will continue to occur as the natural results of slav- 
ery ; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, 
can happen in this country for a long time. Who- 

lo ever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, 
will be alike disappointed. 

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many 
years ago, " It is still in our power to direct the pro- 
cess of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and 

15 in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off 
insensibly ; and their places be, pari passu, filled up 
by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is 
left to force itself on, human nature must shudder 
at the prospect held up." 

20 Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that 
the power of emancipation is in the Federal Gov- 
ernment. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the 
power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding 
States only. The Federal Government, however, as 

25 we insist, has the power of restraining the exten- 
sion of the institution — the power to insure that a 
slave insurrection shall never occur on any Ameri- 
can soil which is now free from slavery. 

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a 

30 slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men 
to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 237 

refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd 
that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly 
enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its 
philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, 
related in history, at the assassination of kings and 5 
emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppres- 
sion of a people till he fancies himself commissioned 
by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the 
attempt, which ends in little else than his own execu- 
tion. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and 10 
John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in 
their philosophy, precisely the same. The eager- 
ness to cast blame on old England in the one case, 
and on New England in the other, does not dis- 
prove the sameness of the two things. 15 

And how much would it avail you, if you could 
by the* use of John Brown, Helper's book, and 
the like, break up the Republican organization? 
Human action can be modified to some extent, but 
human nature cannot be changed. There is a judg- 20 
ment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, 
which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You 
cannot destroy that judgment and feeling — that sen- 
timent — by breaking up the political organization 
Vv'hich rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter 25 
and disperse an army which has been formed into 
order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you 
could, how much would you gain by forcing the 
sentiment which created it out of the peaceful chan- 
nel of the ballot-box into some other channel? ^o 
What would that other channel probably be? 



238 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

Would the number of John Browns be lessened or 
enlarged by the operation? 

But you will break up the Union rather than sub- 
mit to a denial of your constitutional rights. 
5 That has a somewhat reckless sound ; but it would 
be palliated, if not fully justified, were we propos- 
ing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you 
of some right plainly written down in the Consti- 
tution. But we are proposing no such thing. 

lo When you make these declarations you have a 
specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed 
constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the 
Federal Territories, and to hold them there as prop- 
erty. But no such right is specially written in the 

15 Constitution. That instrument is literally silent 
about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny 
that such a right has any existence in the Constitu- 
tion, even by implication. 

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will 

20 destroy the government, unless you be allowed to 
construe and force the Constitution as you please, 
on all points in dispute between you and us. You 
will rule or ruin in all events. 

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps 

25 you will say the Supreme Court has decided the dis- 
puted constitutional question in your favor. Not 
quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction 
between dictum and decision the court has decided 
the question for you in a sort of way. The 

30 court has substantially said, it is your constitutional 
right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 2:cj 

to hold them there as property. When I say the 
decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it 
was made in a divided court, by a bare majority 
of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with 
one another in the reasons for making it; that 5 
it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree 
with one another about its meaning, and that it was 
mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact — 
the statement in the opinion that " the right of prop- 
erty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed 10 
in the Constitution." 

An inspection of the Constitution will show that 
the right of property in a slave is not " distinctly 
and expressly affirmed " in it. Bear in mind, the 
judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such 15 
right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but 
they pledge their veracity that it is *' distinctly and 
expressly " affirmed there — '' distinctly," that is, 
not mingled with anything else — '' expressly," that 
is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of 20 
any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. 

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that 
such right is affirmed in the instrument by implica- 
tion, it would be open to others to show that neither 
the word " slave " nor " slavery " is to be found in 25 
the Constitution, nor the word " property " even, 
in any connection with language alluding to the 
thing slave, or slavery ; and that wherever in that 
instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a 
" person " ; and wherever his master's legal right in 30 
relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as " ser- 



240 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

vice or labor which may be due " — as a debt pay- 
able in service or labor. Also it would be open to 
show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of 
alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking 
5 of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from 
the Constitution the idea that there could be prop- 
erty in man. 

To show all this is easy and certain. 

When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be 

1° brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect 
that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and 
reconsider the conclusion based upon it? 

And then it is to be remembered that " our fathers 
who framed the government under which we live " 

15 — the men who made the Constitution — decided this 
same constitutional question in our favor long ago ; 
decided it without division among themselves when 
making the decision ; without division among them- 
selves about the meaning of it after it was made, 

20 and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it 
upon any mistaken statement of facts. 

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel 
yourselves justified to break up this government 
unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at 

25 once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of 
political action? But you will not abide the elec- 
tion of a Republican president! In that supposed 
event, you say, you will destroy the Union ; and then, 
you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will 

30 be upon us ! That is cool. A highwayman holds 
a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 241 

" Stand and deliver, or I shall kill yon, and then 
yon will be a murderer ! " 

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me — 
my money — was my own; and I had a clear right 
to keep it ; but it was no more my own than my vote 5 
is my own ; and the threat of death to me, to extort 
my money, and the threat of destruction to the 
Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distin- 
guished in principle. 

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceed- 10 
ingly desirable that all parts of this great Confed- 
eracy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with 
another. Let us R.epublicans do our part to have 
it so. Even though much provoked, let us do noth- 
ing through passion and ill temper. Even though 15 
the Southern people will not so much as listen to 
us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield 
to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we 
possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and 
by the subject and nature of their controversy with 20 
us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy 
them. 

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be uncon- 
ditionally surrendered to them ? We know they will 
not. In all their present complaints against us, the 25 
Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and 
insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy 
them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with 
invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. 
We so know, because we know we never had any- ^o 
thing to do with invasions and insurrections; and 



2|2 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from 
the charge and the denunciation. 

The question recurs, What will satisfy them? 
Simply this: we must not only let them alone, but 
5 we must somehow convince them that we do let 
them alone. This, we know by experience, is no 
easy task. We have been so trying to convince 
them from the very beginning of our organization, 
but with no success. In all our platforms and 

lo speeches we have constantly protested our purpose 
to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to 
convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them 
is the fact that they have never detected a man of 
us in any attempt to disturb them. 

15 These natural and apparently adequate means all 
failing, what will convince them? This, and this 
only : cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in 
calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly 
— done in acts as well as in words. Silence will 

20 not be tolerated — we must place ourselves avow- 
edly with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition 
law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all 
declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in 
politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We 

25 must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with 
greedy pleasure. We must pull down our free- 
State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must 
be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slav- 
ery, before they will cease to believe that all their 

30 troubles proceed from us. 

I am quite aware they do not state their case pre- 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 243 

cisely in this way. Most of them would probably 
say to us, " Let us alone ; do nothing to us, and say 
what you please about slavery." But we do let 
them alone — have never disturbed them — so that, 
after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. 5 
They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we 
cease saying. 

I am also aware they have not as yet in terms 
demanded the overthrow of our free-State consti- 
tutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrong 10 
of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all 
other sayings against it; and when all these other 
sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of 
these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing 
be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the 15 
contrary that they do not demand the whole of this 
just now. Demanding what they do, and for the 
reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere 
short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, 
that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, 20 
they cannot cease to demand a full national recog- 
nition of it as a legal right and a social blessing. 

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any 
\ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. 
jif slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and con- 25 
stitutions against it are themselves wrong, and 
should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, 
we cannot justly object to its nationality — its uni- 
versality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist 
upon its extension — its enlargement. All they ask 30 
we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; 



244 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 

all \yc ask they could as readily grant, if they 
thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our 
thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which 
depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, 
5 as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full 
recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, 
as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our 
votes with their view, and against our own? In 
view of our moral, social, and political responsi- 

lo bilities, can we do this? 

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afiford 
to let it alone where it is, because that much is due 
to the necessity arising from its actual presence in 
the nation; but can we, while our votes will pre- 

15 vent it, allow it to spread into the national Terri- 
tories, and to overrun us here in these free States? 
If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand 
by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be 
diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances 

20 wherewith we are so industriously plied and bela- 
bored — contrivances such as groping for some mid- 
dle ground between the right and the wrong: vain 
as the search for a man who should be neither a 
living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of 

25 " don't care " on a question about which all true men 
do care; such as Union appeals beseeching true 
Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the 
divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the 
righteous to repentance; such as invocations to 

30 Washington, imploring men to unsay what Wash- 
ington said and undo what Washington did. 



LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 245 

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by 
false accusations against us, nor frightened from it 
by menaces of destruction to the government, nor 
of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that 
right makes might, and in that faith let us to the 
end dare to do our duty as we understand it. 



NOTES 

THE SPRINGFIELD SPEECH 
June i6, 1858 

On the evening after he had received from the 
Republican State Convention its unanimous nomina- 
tion for the United States Senatorship, Mr. Lincoln 
opened his campaign with this address. Because of its 
deliberate preparation and the radical character of some 
of its doctrines, it became the cardinal statement of 
the Republican position in the campaign of 1858, and 
the center of the most bitter attack of Mr. Lincoln's 
opponents. Indeed its utterance may be said to have 
marked the beginning of the final phase of the anti- 
slavery agitation which culminated in the War of the 
Rebellion. It had as much to do as any other single 
utterance with Lincoln's ultimate rise to national 
leadership. 

1:12. I believe this government cannot endure per- 
manently half slave and half free. — We can now appre- 
ciate with difficulty the sensation produced first 
throughout the state of Illinois, and later throughout 
the entire country by the first paragraph of this 
address containing the famous allusion to the " house 
divided against itself." To the conservative friends 
of slavery and of freedom alike, it seemed a deliberate 
incitement to sectional strife. " At the North, nine 
men out of ten," says J. T. Morse (Life of Lin- 
coln, vol. i. p. 115), "cared less for any principle, 
moral or political, than they did for the discovery of 
some course whereby this unwelcome conflict between 
slavery and freedom could be prevented from dis- 

247 



248 NOTES 

organizing the course of daily business." Mr. Lincoln'5 
words, therefore, were at the beginning of the campaign 
the delight of his political enemies and the dismay of 
his friends. But in his judgment the time was ripe. 

Mr. Lincoln, as Republican leader of his state, had 
been led for some time to expect his nomination. His 
entire address of acceptance was prepared beforehand 
with the utmost care. When it was complete, Mr. 
Lincoln read it for criticism to his law partner, Mr. 
William H. Herndon. After the words " A house 
divided against itself cannot stand," Herndon, who was 
an abolitionist, remarked, " It is true, but is it politic 
to say so?" Lincoln replied: "The proposition is 
true and has been for six thousand years. I want to 
use some universally known figure expressed in simple 
language, as universally well known, that may strike 
home to the minds of men in order to raise them up to 
the peril of the times." 

Reading the address later before a group of a dozen 
friends, he asked each for his opinion. Only one 
endorsed it; one characterized it as " ahead of its 
time " ; another as a " fool utterance." The con- 
servative vote it was urged would be alienated. But 
Herndon, who was of the number, exclaimed, " Lin- 
coln, deliver that speech as read, and it will make you 
President." To his critics Lincoln replied, " Friends, 
this thing has been retarded long enough. The time 
has come when these sentiments should be uttered; 
and if it is decreed that I should go down because of 
this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth — 
let me die in the advocacy of what is just and right." 

The nobility of such language is manifest when we 
consider Lincoln's intense ambition for the Senator- 
ship, the uncertain strength of the anti-slavery senti- 
ment in the state, and the fact that he knew he was 
leading his party into unknown paths. The joy with 
which the doctrine of this opening paragraph was 



NOTES 249 

received by Lincoln's opponents is revealed by Senator 
Douglas's incessant attacks upon it throughout the 
debates. 

2: 15. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded. 
— When Taylor was elected president in 1848, slavery 
was sanctioned by law in fifteen Southern states and 
the District of Columbia. It was prohibited by law in 
fifteen Northern states. The admission of Californir. 
in 1850 as a free state gave the North an advantage in 
all matters of national legislation. Morever by the 
provisions of the Missouri Compromise slavery was 
excluded from all national territory north of lat. 36° 30'. 

2:18. Four days later commenced the struggle. — 
Senator Douglas introduced the Nebraska Bill on Jan. 
4, 1854. 

3:2. If any one man choose to enslave another. — 
This paraphrase of Douglas's doctrine of popular 
sovereignty is a happy instance of Lincoln's power to 
sum up a political issue in a homely and telling 
aphorism. For further erxplanation of the doctrine 
see the Debates, and the Introduction, p. xxiii. 

3:15. "But," said opposition members, "let us 
amend the bill." — Sen. Salmon P. Chase of Ohio led the 
opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. By various 
means, including this amendment which is discussed by 
Mr. Lincoln in the Freeport debate beginning on p. 26, 
and subsequently by Mr. Douglas, beginning p. 36. Sen- 
ator Chase sought to render distinct the division 
between the slavery and anti-slavery forces in the 
Senate. 

4:4. Senator Trumbull. — Lyman Trumbull (1813-96), 
a conspicuous figure in this campaign, had been a judge 
of the Supreme Court in Illinois, and was from 1854- 
72 a Senator, representing his state in the national 
Senate. He was in this campaign a supporter of Lin- 
coln — perhaps his most powerful one. 

4: 10. Mr. Buchanan was elected. — By the popular 



250 NOTES 

vote, James Buchanan, Democrat, received 1,838,169 
votes; John C. Fremont, Republican, 1,341,264; and Mil- 
lard Fillmore, representing the Know-Nothings and 
Whigs, received 874,534. Buchanan succeeded Franklin 
Pierce. 

4:22. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill. — 
i.e. Senator Douglas. 

4:31. The Silliman letter.— A document addressed 
to President Buchanan in 1856 by the " electors of the 
State of Connecticut," with Prof. Silliman of Yale 
University as its chief author, relative to the state of 
affairs in Kansas. In his reply the President cites the 
Dred Scott decision as proving that slavery existed in 
Kansas Territory with the sanction of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. 

5:6. The Lecompton Constitution. — For a discus- 
sion, see the Introduction, p. xxxii. 

5: 10. He cares not whether slavery be voted down 
or voted up. — This declaration of Senator Douglas was 
made in a speech on the Lecompton scheme, Dec. 9, 
1857, in the Senate of the United States. The quota- 
tion was used with great effect by Lincoln throughout 
the campaign. The indifference of Douglas to the 
moral aspect of slavery was the ultimate cause of his 
political downfall. 

8:17. Stephen A. Douglas, Franklin Pierce, Roger 
B. Taney, James Buchanan.— The charge, which Lin- 
coln has now completely insinuated, is that President 
Pierce, his successor, President Buchanan, Chief Justice 
Taney and Senator Douglas, leader of the Democratic 
party in the Senate, were in collusion for the further- 
ance of a policy whereby slavery was to be national- 
ized. This was a matter of general belief among 
Republicans at the time. 

A specific charge relative to the Dred Scott decision 
had recently been made by William H. Seward in the 
United States Senate, to the effect that " Before com- 



NOTES 251 

ing into office Buchanan approached, or was approached, 
by the Supreme Court of the United States." The 
court, alleged Mr. Seward, informed Mr. Buchanan of 
the nature of its expected decision, in such a way that 
the President was able to "announce the forthcoming 
extrajudicial exposition of the Constitution and pledge 
his submission to it as authoritative and final." 
(Quoted by Rhodes' History of the U. S., ii. p. 268.) 

Mr. Rhodes indicates the lack of evidence to sustain 
the charge. " The only evidence for the charge of 
Seward lay in the statement of the President in his 
inaugural, that the question as to the time when people 
of a territory might exclude slavery therefrom was 
pending before the Supreme Court and would speedily 
be settled. Undoubtedly Buchanan then knew what 
would be substantially the decision of the court on 
the territorial question — but so did a thousand other 
men." It had in fact been accurately forecast in the 
New York Tribune of March 2, 1856. " But, however 
Buchanan got his evidence," continues Rhodes, " his 
character and that of Taney are proof that the Chief 
Justice did not communicate the import of the deci- 
sion to the President-Elect. 

" The tact of Lincoln is shown in making the charge 
by intimation and by trenchant questions; then, with 
humor and exquisite skill, giving a homely illustration 
which struck the popular mind so forcibly that the 
notion conveyed by it undoubtedly became the belief 
of the Republican masses as long as the Dred Scott 
decision remained 'a question of politics." (Rhodes' 
History, Vol. ii. p. 270.) 

The character of the evidence tending to prove the 
broad conspiracy to nationalize slavery, on the part of 
" Stephen, and Roger, and Franklin, and James," so 
far as it is brought forward by Lincoln in the Debates, 
is discussed in subsequent notes. (See 24:20, 25:25, 26:8, 
and 31:2, and notes thereon.) 



252 NOTES 

9: 22. If McLean or Curtis had sought. — At the time 
of the Dred Scott decision, March 6, 1857, the Supreme 
Court consisted of five members from Southern states. 
Of the four judges from Northern states two were 
Democrats; Justice McLean was the only Republican, 
and Justice Curtis was still rated as a Whig, In the 
decision, all justices essentially concurred except Jus- 
tices McLean and Curtis, the latter of whom wrote 
an extremely able minority opinion. 

9:25. Chase and Mace. — Senator Salmon P. Chase of 
Ohio, of pronounced anti-slavery views; the leading 
opponent of Douglas in the Kansas-Nebraska debate 
in 1854. Daniel Mace, was a Democratic Representa- 
tive from Indiana and an opponent of the Nebraska 
Bill. 

11:4 There are those who denounce us. — Lincoln 
was obliged at the beginning of the campaign to meet 
a singular defection among the leaders of his own 
party. Horace Greeley, the powerful editor of the New 
York Tribune, Anson G. Burlingame, Schuyler Colfax, 
and many others, became for a time more or less openly 
sympathizers with Douglas. Lincoln's comparative ob- 
scurity, and the unparalleled prestige of Douglas as a 
national leader, were the incentives to this political 
unfaith. This defection was a great mortification to 
Lincoln and a stumbling block throughout his entire 
campaign. Senator Douglas never had any lasting idea 
of becoming a Republican leader. His lack of convic- 
tions on the slavery issue, as Lincoln points out, unfitted 
him for such a step. His votes on the Lecompton 
matter and the English Bill, were among the highest 
expressions in his whole career of a political morality, 
previously very unstable. But no other explanation of 
Mr. Lincoln's defeat for the Senatorship is necessary 
beyond this defection of Republican leaders in their 
following after a vain hope. 

11:8. A little quarrel with the present head of the 



NOTES 253 

dynasty—The reference is to Douglas's quarrel with 
the Buchanan administration on account of his revolt 
against the Lecompton Constitution, and the English 
Bill (see Introduction p. xxiii). 

THE SECOND JOINT DEBATE 

AT FREEPORT* 

August 27, 1858 

The first two of the series of seven debates, those at 
Ottawa and Freeport, took place in Northern Illinois, 
among a population strong in Republican and Aboli- 
tion sentiment. In the Ottawa debate on August 21, 
Douglas had attacked the " House-divided-against-it- 
self" doctrine as revolutionary; had sneered at Lin- 
coln for maintaining that negroes were included in the 
statement of the Declaration of Independence that " all 
men are created equal "; and had criticised his opponent 
for his continued opposition to the principles affirmed 
by the U. S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. 
By this mode of attack, Douglas sought, first of all, to 
fix extreme abolition principles upon Lincoln, thinking 
to accomplish this the more readily, since Lincoln, in 
giving voice to radical views in this section of the 
state, would be heartily applauded by those whose sup- 
port he sought. But such an expression in Northern 
Illinois, Douglas knew, would embarrass Lincoln when 
he came to address audiences in Central Illinois which 
were divided or lukewarm in their attitude toward 
slavery; and would embarrass him still more before the 
pro-slavery audiences of Southern Illinois — " Egypt," 
as it is termed in the Debates. Lincoln's following was 
heterogeneous. "Their principles," tauntingly ex- 
claimed Douglas, " in the North are jet-black, in the 
center they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower 
Egypt they are almost white." If he could fix extreme 

*For a general account of the series of debates, sec the Introduction. 



254 NOTES 

.ibolilion views upon Lincoln in Northern Illinois, 
Douglas hoped thereby to detach many of Lincoln's sup- 
porters in central and southern Illinois, But on the 
other hand, if Lincoln resisted the temptation thus set 
before him, but failed, through timidity or conservatism, 
to satisfy his anti-slavery hearers in Northern Illinois, 
disintegration would begin on the spot in the ranks of 
those who were expected to support him. 

As a specific means of accomplishing his end. Senator 
Douglas propounded seven questions to Mr, Lincoln in 
the Ottawa Debate, based on certain resolutions passed 
in 1854, alleged Senator Douglas, by the first Republi- 
can state convention ever held in Illinois — resolutions 
expressive of strong Abolition sentiment, which, accord- 
ing to Douglas were passed in the presence and with 
the sanction of Lincoln. (For a copy of these resolu- 
tions, see p. 260.) 

In reply to Douglas- at Ottawa Lincoln asserted that 
he had had no connection whatever with the resolu- 
tions quoted by his opponent and was, therefore, under 
no obligation to answer the questions asked. Never- 
theless he consented to do so provided Judge Douglas 
would agree -to answer similar questions that might 
subsequently be asked by Mr. Lincoln himself. To this 
proposal Judge Douglas made at the time no answer. 

The Ottawa debate appears to have been a drawn 
battle. The partisans of either side were enthusiastic. 
Mr. Lincoln was carried off on the shoulders of several 
young farmers who overruled his remonstrances. But 
perhaps the advantage in this first debate lay on the 
whole with Douglas. His questions had not been 
answered. Lincoln yielded the platform thirteen min- 
utes before the expiration of his time. The superior 
dexterity and polish of Douglas are apparent to the 
reader of the debate, and the effect of its publication, 
declared Douglas's partisan biographer, James. W. 
Sheehan, was most damaging to Lincoln. " The fate 



NOTES 255 

of Lincoln was sealed by the discussion at Ottawa, and 
nothing but a special interposition of Providence could 
have elected a legislature favorable to his election in the 
Senate." (Life of Douglas: p. 432.) Though Lincohi 
was then, as always, immeasurably the superior of 
Douglas morally and in intellectual power, he had not 
yet attained his subsequent height of earnestness and 
spiritual vision; nor had he yet acquired the uniform 
literary skill, which becomes progressively apparent as 
the campaign goes on. 

The Freeport debate, the second in the series, says 
Mr. Horace White (Herndon's Life of Lincoln, Vol. ii. 
p. no), was attended by "a crowd even larger than 
that at Ottawa. Hundreds of people came from Chi- 
cago and many from the neighboring state of Wiscon- 
sin. Douglas came from Galena the night before the 
debate, and was greeted with a great torchlight proces- 
sion. Lincoln came the following day from Dixon and 
was received at the railway station by a dense crowd, 
filling up the adjacent -streets, who shouted themselves 
hoarse when his tall form was seen emerging from the 
tnain." 

This debate is perhaps the most famous of all the 
series. That is true, not because of its literary excel- 
lence, but because of the subsequent national impor- 
tance of answers made by each candidate to vital ques- 
tions put by the other — answers which, in the case of 
Senator Douglas, won for him the Senatorship, but 
destroyed his chance of attaining the larger goal of his 
ambition, the Presidency in i860. 

MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 

The Questions of Senator Douglas 

14:15. Mr. Lincoln opened the Freeport debate by 
answering the seven questions which had been pro- 
pounded to him by Judge Douglas at Ottawa. In the 



2S6 NOTES 

week which had intervened since the debate at Ottawa, 
Mr. Lincohi had ascertained to his satisfaction that the 
resolutions used by Judge Douglas at Ottawa were, 
to all intents and purposes in this campaign, a forgery. 
The issue which thereupon arose as to their genuine- 
ness between the rival candidates is one of the most 
conspicuous of the merely local features of the cam- 
paign. Th'e dispute upon them recurs with consider- 
able acrimony in the Galesburgh debate. (See Lin- 
coln's speech, pp. 113-116, and Douglas's rejoinder, pp. 
133-136.) Lincoln, however, waiving the question 
whether Douglas has any right to require him to 
answer questions based upon a platform for which he 
is in no way responsible — proceeds to answer each in 
detail. His first series of responses seems to take 
a technical advantage of the precise phrasing of Doug- 
las's questions. 

Does Mr. Lincoln derive any real advantage from 
this first series of technical denials? 

17:21. Question i. In regard to the Fugitive Slave 
Law. The Fugitive Law of 1850 aroused bitter opposi- 
tion in the North. Among its most obnoxious provisions 
were the following: (i) Alleged fugitive slaves were 
denied the right of testimony in their own behalf. " Ex- 
parte evidence determined the identity of the negro who 
was claimed. Even the affidavit of the owner was not 
necessary; that of his agent or attorney would suffice." 
(Rhodes' History of U. S., i. 185.) (2) The reclaimed 
slave was denied the right of trial by jury, but was 
tried by commissioners appointed by the United Cir- 
cuit Courts, who were "to hear and determine the case 
of a claimant in a summary manner." The decision of 
these commissioners once made, no " court, judge, 
magistrate, or any person " could " molest " the owner 
of a recovered slave by any legal process whatsoever. 
(3) The United States marshals were obliged to exe- 
cute the law under penalty of heavy fine for laxity 



NOTES SB7 

of effort. (4) Bystanders and "all good citizens" 
could be summoned to prevent the escape or to aid in 
the discovery of a negro fugitive; and any person who 
should willingly " hinder or prevent the claimant from 
arresting the fugitive," or should "rescue, or attempt to 
rescue .... or harbor or conceal " the fugitive, 
was liable to a " fine not exceeding $1,000, and to 
imprisonment not exceeding six months; and should, 
moreover, for each fugitive so lost, pay to his owne^ 
the sum of $1,000. (5) If the Commissioner decided 
that the negro should be returned to the claimant, his 
fee was ten dollars; if the contrary, his fee was five 
dollars." 

The interest of the slave-holders in the enactment can 
be judged from the following statement made in Scrib- 
ner's Popular History of the U. S., (Vol. iv. p. 395) : 
" It was estimated that more than 30,000 fugitive slaves 
found homes in Canada during the thirty years of the 
anti-slavery agitation; and that at the time of the pas- 
sage of the act of 1850 there were not less than 20,000 
in the free states." 

The citizens of the free states, excepting the Aboli- 
tionists', who formed a small proportion of the popu- 
lation, were as a rule in favor of the general principle 
which permitted a slave-holder to recover a slave who 
had crossed the border into a free state or territory; but 
the specific provisions of the law of 1850, especially 
those which made every citizen liable on demand to 
render assistance in recapturing fugitives, were exe- 
crated. Ttie passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 
1854 did much to awaken a smarting sense of their injus- 
tice. Thereafter, the law had no efficient enforcement. 
See Lincoln's speech at Cooper Institute: 201:5. 

18: 5. Question 2. Whether I am pledged to the admis- 
sion of any more Slave States. This cautious and hesi- 
tating reply to an extraordinarily shrewd question is 
ridiculed by Judge Douglas in his reply on pp. 59-63 to 



258 NOTES 

Mr. Lincoln's answers to Questions I and 2. When 
Mr. Lincoln makes the hypothesis (line 12), "if slavery 
shall be kept out of the territories during the territorial 
existence of any one given territory," it must be 
remembered that the Dred Scott decision of 1857 had 
already in effect legalized slavery in all the territories. 
The answer, therefore, is indirect. 

What would have been the effect of a more direct 
ajiswer, positive or negative? Notice especially in this 
connection Douglas's attack in the Alton debate 
(148:24 et scq.) on this same reply of Lincoln's. 
Has Lincoln sought to evade the question by "invent- 
ing a case which did not exist and could not exist" 
at the time when he answered the question? (See 
Douglas's assertion to that effect, p. 150, line 27.) 

The answer as given must certainly have failed to 
satisfy the Abolitionists. Douglas says (149:28), 
that Mr. Lincoln supposed " it would satisfy the old 
line Whigs, composed of Kentuckians and Virginians, 
down in the southern part of the State," men who 
favored slavery, but who believed the Union should be 
preserved at any cost. 

18: 19. If we own the country, i.e. If the territory 
already belongs to us; an allusion to the contemplated 
acquisition of Cuba by purchase — a favorite plan of 
President Buchanan and his Southern advisers. 

18:24. Question 4. In regard to the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia. This question of 
abolishing slavery within the District is distinct from 
that of the abolition of the slave trade therein, which 
took place in 1850, as a result of one of the measures 
of the Compromise legislation of that year. 

Mr. Lincoln favors abolition in the District only if 
it be " gradual, compensated, and accomplished with the 
consent of the inhabitants." Were these three condi- 
tions likely to be agreeable or equally agreeable to the 
anti-slavery element of Illinois? 



NOTES 259 

19:11. Question 5. The question of the abolition of 
the slave trade between the different states. Though 
Lincoln's reply is almost absolutely non-committal, the 
question raised is entirely unimportant as an issue in 
the debates of this campaign. 

20: I. Question 6. Whether I desire that Slavery 
should be prohibited in all the territories. In the 
answer to this interrogation, at least, Lincoln is explicit 
and direct. (16:29.) Here he goes the entire length desired 
by his immediate audience. 

20: 5. Question 7. Whether I am opposed to the 
acquisition of more territory unless slavery is first pro- 
hibited. Lincoln's declaration (17:4), that in general 
he would or would not oppose the acquisition of 
new territory accordingly as he thought it would or 
would not aggravate the slavery question " derived its 
immediate importance from the well-known intention 
of the Buchanan administration and a very considerable 
party in the South very soon to acquire Cuba." (J. J. 
Morse: Abraham Lincoln, Vol. i. p. 134.) While Secre- 
tary of State under Polk, Buchanan had offered Spain 
$100,000,000 for the island. 

For Douglas's views upon " expansion " see pp. 40- 
41. And especially see Lincoln's reply at Galesburgh, 
pp. 125-129. 

20:22. The Questions of Mr. Lincoln. The anno- 
tation of these questions is deferred until Mr. Doug- 
las's answers to them are discussed. See the annotation 
of page 33 et seq, Mr. Lincoln now takes the aggres- 
sive. 

21:20. The first Republican Convention, held at 
Springfield in October, 1854. This introduces the issue 
of the authenticity of the resolutions to which reference 
has already been made. The important sections of the 
resolutions quoted at Ottawa by Mr. Douglas, with 
his prefatory remarks concerning them are appended 
herewith. After charging that Lincoln and Trumbull 



56o NOTES 

had conspired together to make a new party out of the 
disrupted elements of the Old Whigs and Democrats 
(see Introduction), and that they had at this time assem- 
bled their forces in conjunction with Owen Lovejoy, 
Fred Douglass and other Abolition leaders in a state 
convention, Senator Douglas goes on: 

" I have the resolutions of their state convention then 
held, which was the first mass state convention ever 
held in Illinois by the Black Republican party. . . . 
Here are the most important and material resolutions 
of this Abolition platform: 

" * I. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self-evi- 
dent, that when parties become subversive of the ends 
for which they are established, or incapable of restor- 
ing the Government to the true principles of the Con- 
stitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dis- 
solve the political bands by which they may have been 
connected therewith, and to organize new parties upon 
such principles and with such views as the circum- 
stances and exigencies of the nation may demand. 

" ' 2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand the 
reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all previous 
party attachments, names and predilections, we unite 
ourselves together in defense of the liberty and Consti- 
tution of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as 
the Republican party, pledged to the accomplishment of 
the following purposes: To bring the administration of 
the Government back to the control of first principles; 
to restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free 
territories; as the Constitution of the United States 
vests in the states, and not in Congress, the power to 
legislate for the extradition of fugitives from labor, to 
repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law; 
to restrict slavery to those states in which it exists; to 
prohibit the admission of any more slave states into the 
Union; to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; 
to exclude slavery from all the territories over which the 



NOTES 261 

General Government has exclusive jurisdiction; and to 
resist the acquirements of any more territories unless 
the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been 
prohibited.' " 

The facts regarding the resolutions as recorded by 
Lincoln's \slw partner, William H. Herndon (Life of 
Lincoln, Vol. ii. p. s^), are, briefly, as follows: In Octo- 
ber of 1854, the State Fair was held at Springfield. To 
it came Douglas to defend the Kansas-Nebraska legis- 
lation especially before that section of his party which 
he had alienated. To it also came Lincoln, the spokes- 
man for all who opposed Douglas and his new theory 
of Popular Sovereignty. Both made powerful speeches. 
Lincoln's address kindled anew the old anti-Nebraska 
spirit among his hearers, and Owen Lovejoy, a fiery, 
radical, fanatical Abolitionist, as soon as Lincoln fin- 
ished speaking, rushed forward, and announced a meet- 
ing that same evening of the friends of Freedom. 
That meant all the Abolitionists. The plan was to have 
Lincoln speak again, but while Lovejoy was in search 
of him, Herndon, fearing the effect such an affiliation 
might have on Lincoln's senatorial ambitions, for the 
following year, sent him a message urging him to avoid 
Lovejoy. " Go home at once," said Herndon. " Take 
Bob with you and drive somewhere into the country, 
and stay till this thing is over." 

Lincoln accepted the suggestion and drove over into 
Tazewell County to attend a session of court, where he 
remained until the Abolitionists had left Springfield and 
gone home. That is what saved Lincoln from an 
unfortunate political connection. 

But the mass meeting thus assembled was in no 
sense a convention, much less a Republican Convention. 
It is hard to believe that Senator Douglas could have 
been ignorant of this fact. The very resolutions pre- 
sented by him at Ottawa as having been passed by this 
convention were passed, charges Lincoln, by another 



2(i2 NOTES 

convention in another county. This fact is of course 
the basis of the accusation that the resolutions were 
forged. To this charge Douglas replies at length and 
with some acrimony on pages 43-49 of this debate. 
Lincoln returns to the matter in his reply in the Gales- 
burgh debate. (See pp. 113-118.) 

Before leaving this topic, it should be noted that 
Lincoln has already (p. 15, line 12), stated in this debate 
that the Republican party of Illinois held its first 
state convention at Bloomington in 1856, two years 
after the date of the resolutions under discussion. 

24:20. There was a conspiracy to make slavery per- 
petual and national. This charge it will be remembered 
constitutes the body of Lincoln's Address of Acceptance 
at Springfield on June 16, 1858. The attitude of Mr. 
Douglas toward it is expressed in the following selec- 
tion from his rejoinder at Ottawa: 

" In relation to Mr. Lincoln's charge of conspiracy 
against me, I have a word to say. In his speech to-day 
he quotes a playful part of his speech at Springfield, 
about Step.hen, and James, and Franklin, and Roger, 
and says that I did not take exception to it. I did not 
answer it, and he repeats it again. I did not take excep- 
tion to this figure of his. He has a right to be as play- 
ful as he pleases in throwing his arguments together, 
and I will not object; but I did take objection to his 
second Springfield speech, in which' he stated that he 
intended his first speech as a charge of corruption or 
conspiracy against the Supreme Court of the United 
States, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and 
myself. That gave the offensive character to the 
charge. He then said that when he made it he did 
not know .whether it was true or not, but inasmuch as 
Judge Douglas had not denied it, although he had 
replied to the other parts of his speech three times, he 
repeated it as a charge of conspiracy against me, thus 
charging me with moral turpitude. When he put it in 



NOTES 26z 

that form, I did say, that inasmuch as he repeated the 
charge simply because I had not denied it, I would 
deprive him of the opportunity of ever repeating it 
again, by declaring that it was in all its bearings an 
infamous lie. He says he will repeat it until I answer 
his folly and nonsense about Stephen, and Franklin, 
and Roger, and Rob, and James. 

*' He studied that out — prepared that one sentence 
with the greatest care, committed it to memory, and 
put it in his first Springfield speech, and now he carries 
that speech around and reads that sentence to show 
how pretty it is. His vanity is wounded because I will 
not go into that beautiful figure of his about the building 
of a house. All I have to say is, that I am not green 
enough to let him make a charge which he acknowledges 
he does not know to be true, and then take up my time 
in answering it, when I know it to be false and nobody 
else knows it to be true. 

*" Mr. Lincoln has not character enough for integrity 
and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, to arraign Presi- 
dent Buchanan, President Pierce, and nine Judges of 
the Supreme Court, not one of whom would be com- 
plimented by being put on an equality with him. There 
is an unpardonable presumption in a man putting him- 
self up before thousands of people, and pretending that 
his ipse dixit, without proof, without fact, and without 
truth, is enough to bring down and destroy the purest 
and best of living men." See text and notes, 8:17, 25:25, 
31:2. ^ - . 

24:29. Observe the effectiveness of Lincoln's quaint 
humor, as a means of getting rid of the prejudicial 
acrimony of Senator Douglas's rejoinder just quoted, 

25:25. By an amendment it was provided . . 

not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory. 
Douglas proposed this amendment on February 7, 1854, 
two weeks after the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was intro- 
duced. It was, said S-enator Benton of Missouri, " a 



264 NOTES 

little stump speech injected into the belly of the bill." 
The entire Bill, applying the principle of Popular 
Sovereignty, made slavery in any territory permissive 
upon the will of the people to introduce it. It amounted 
to an absolute repeal of the eighth section of the Mis- 
souri Compromise of 1820, w^hich prohibited slavery in 
the territory north of latitude 36° 30'. This repeal, alone 
by itself, opened the way for the Southern contention 
that slave-holders had *' a constitutional right to go into 
any territory with their property — a right which could 
not be affected by act of Congress or Territorial legis- 
lature." To admit this claim would have been a com- 
plete betrayal of Northern principles. Douglas had made 
a tremendous concession to the South. He sought now 
to allay the rising tide of Northern wrath and alarm. 
To be sure he had already embodied in the provisions 
of the Bill the principle of Popular Sovereignty, giving 
the people of the territories the right to decide for 
themselves whether slavery should exist among them, 
but further to appease many Northern Democrats who 
were willing to subscribe to that principle, but who 
repudiated the Southern belief in the constitutionality 
of slavery — to appease them, and thus prevent a threat- 
ened division of his forces, Douglas introduced the 
amendment quoted by Lincoln. Its purpose was purely 
persuasive. Its introduction of the word " State " into 
the bill was, however, regarded as ominous by Lincoln, 
who cited the circumstance in the Ottawa debate in 
corroboration of his theory of a conspiracy to nation- 
alize slavery. 

26:8. Mr. Chase of Ohio introduced an amendment 
. . . to exclude slavery if they saw fit. This 
amendment was introduced on Feb. 6, 1854, the day 
before Senator Douglas's amendment just quoted was 
presented. Senator Salmon P. Chase, later appointed 
Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President 
Lincoln, was Douglas's chief opponent in the warfare 



NOTES 265 

over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Chase was a Free- 
Soil Senator from Ohio, a radical anti-slavery man and 
an able leader. Presumably he had no idea that Dong- 
las would accept any amendment proposed by him of 
the character described — any more than he had himself 
of accepting the suggestion of General Cass, (28:2) 
for an amendment that should give the people of 
the territories the power to introduce as well as to 
exclude slavery. The amendment was a phase of the 
parliamentary battle which Chase was waging to expose 
the extreme pro-slavery character of the bill, and thus 
divide the Northern and Southern Democrats. This 
division, threatened then, and avoided by various 
temporary expedients of Douglas (see the previous 
note), became a formally accomplished fact in the 
presidential campaign of i860. The replies of Doug- 
las in this Freeport Debate to the questions of Mr. 
Lincoln contain the doctrine which made the breach 
inevitable. 

For Douglas's reply to this argument of Lincoln, 
see p. 36: 14 ct scq. Is Lincoln's use of the facts of 
this amendment, as tending to prove the alleged con- 
spiracy to nationalize slaver}^ conclusive? 

26: 18. A decision of the Supreme Court. The Dred 
Scott decision of 1857, rendered three years after the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill became a law. For its bearing 
on the conspiracy charge it should be remembered that 
the Dred Scott case was first argued before the Supreme 
Court of the United States in the spring of 1856. See 
note on 8:17. See especially Douglas, p. 64:27. 

28:2. General Cass. Lewis Cass (1782-1866), Dem- 
ocratic Senator from Michigan, was an ardent supporter 
and main ally of Henry Clay, in his compromise meas- 
ures of 1850, and one of the most prominent leaders of 
his party. 

30: 20. Upon his ipse dixit charging a conspiracjjf. 
The language of Douglas appears in the last paragraph 



266 NOTES 

cited from the Ottawa debate, in the annotation upon 
24:20. 

31:2. That he had made substantially the same 
charge against substantially the same persons. In the 
Ottawa Debate, Lincoln had quoted matter from a 
speech of Douglas in the Senate on March 22, 1858, in 
which Douglas, after reading certain passages from the 
Washington Union upon the Lecompton Constitution, 
pointed out their essential relation to certain passages 
in the Lecompton Constitution itself, and further 
declared that the evidence pointed to a common author- 
itative source for both expressions; that common source 
being he inferred none other than President Buchanan. 
This amounted to a charge on Douglas's part that the 
Administration was conspiring to defraud Kansas of her 
right to determine for herself whether she should per- 
mit slavery within her borders or not. Thus Lincoln 
seeks Douglas's admission that he believed Buchanan 
to be a party to a conspiracy to engraft slavery upon 
Kansas, and by so doing Lincoln seeks to forge another 
link in his circumstantial proof of a conspiracy to 
nationalize slavery. Douglas qualifies his own charge 
in his Reply, beginning 64: 10, but see especially 
Lincoln's reiteration of the whole matter in his Rejoin- 
der, pages 72-78. 

The elements of the conspiracy to nationalize slavery 
as thus far outlined in the campaign by Lincoln are: 
(i) the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, 
repealing the Missouri Compromise, and putting into 
operation the principle of popular sovereignty; (2) the 
defeat of the Chase amendment in 1854; (3) the Dred 
Scott decision of 1857, denying the rights of citizenship 
to the negro, affirming the constitutionality of slavery 
and denying the power of Congress or a territorial legis- 
lature to exclude slavery from any territory; (4) the impli- 
cation of the Buchanan administration in the Lecompton 
scheme in November, 1857. (S) There is left a "vacant 



NOTES 267 

niche," yet to be filled by a new Dred Scott decision, soon to 
come, whereby slavery will be legalized in the states as well 
as in the territories. Then nationalization will be complete. 
To what extent does Lincoln's treatment of the sev- 
eral phases of this conspiracy amount to demonstra- 
tion ? 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 

The Questions of Mr. Lincoln, and their Answers by 
Senator Douglas 

(The questions as Lincoln asked them appear on 
pages 20-21.) 

33'7- Question i. " If the people of Kansas shall, 
by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, 
adopt a state constitution, and ask admission into the 
Union under it, before they have the requisite number of 
inhabitants according to the English Bill — some ninety- 
three thousand — will you vote to admit them?'* 

The Lecompton Constitution (see Introduction p. xxxii), 
after its adoption at the grossly unjust election of Dec. 
21, 1857, at which, according to Douglas, "probably four- 
fifths of all the legal voters of Kansas were disfran- 
chised and excluded from the polls." was sent to Con- 
gress by President Buchanan on Feb. 2, 1858, with a 
special message recommending the admission of Kansas 
under that organic act. This recommendation was made 
by the President notwithstanding the fact that at a sub- 
sequent valid and lawful election on Jan. 4, 1858, the 
legal voters of the state, by a large majority had 
rejected the Lecompton Constitution. The Constitu- 
tion, however, passed the Senate on March 23, despite 
the revolt of Douglas. On April i, 1858, the bill was 
amended in the House by motion of Montgomery, a 
Democratic Representative from Pennsylvania. The 
Senate had voted down the same amendment, proposed 



268 NOTES 

in that body by Senator Crittenden, a Kentucky Whig. 
The proposition, which came to be known as the Crit- 
tenden-Montgomery Compromise, " provided that the 
Lecompton Constitution should be submitted to a vote 
of the people of Kansas; if assented to, Kansas should 
become a state on the proclamation of the President; 
if rejected, the inhabitants of the territory were author- 
ized to form a constitution and state government/' 
(Rhodes: History of U. S., ii. 299.) The Senate refused 
to concur with the House in this measure. In the effort 
to reach an agreement between the Senate and the 
House, William H. English, a Representative from 
Indiana, proposed another Compromise, known as the 
English Bill. This measure offered Kansas a large grant 
of public lands, if the territory would vote to accept 
statehood under the Lecompton Constitution; if it re- 
fused to do so, Kansas could not be admitted until 
its population equaled the ratio required for a repre- 
sentative, i. e., 93,420. The population of Kansas in 1858 
was about 35,000. Even with these bribes, the people 
of Kansas refused to ratify the Lecompton Con- 
stitution. 

To return to the question asked Douglas by Lincoln. 
Lincoln and Douglas were in essential agreement upon 
the Lecompton issue. Why then did Lincoln press his 
opponent for an answer to this question? Just as 
Douglas had sought to divide Lincoln's followers by 
imputing Abolition tenets to him, so Lincoln sought 
now to take advantage of the open warfare on the 
Lecompton matter between Douglas and the Buchanan 
Administration, as a means of cutting off some 
of Douglas's support. There was a small and rather 
disreputable party of Buchanan Democrats in Illinois 
consisting mainly of office-holders, who had nominated 
candidates in this campaign in obedience to behests 
from Washington to do all in their power to injure 
Douglas. These people, called " Danites," cast about 



NOTES 269 

5000 votes. Into these ranks pro-slavery Democrats at 
odds with Douglas's position on the Kansas question 
would naturally fall. To this question Lincoln probably 
expected a negative answer, but by his cleverly shielded 
affirmative answer Douglas avoided widening the 
breach with his own party, while at the same time, 
though his answer was a slight concession to pro- 
slavery interests, he did not drive from him voters 
that wavered between himself and Lincoln, but were 
essentially opposed to slavery. In short, Douglas's 
answer did not seriously disturb the delicate balance of 
political sentiment. 

34: 25. Whether he will vote to admit Oregon before 
. . . requisite population. Many Republicans op- 
posed the admission of Oregon to the Union because 
she lacked sufficient population for a unit of repre- 
sentation in Congress. Kansas had already been held 
to this rule. Oregon, however, was admitted in 1859. 

35:12. Question 2. Can the people of United States 
territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any 
citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its 
limits prior to the formation of a state constitution? 
To appreciate the full force of this interrogatory, which 
embodies Lincoln's most vital thrust at his opponent, 
the student must bear in mind the nature of Douglas's 
doctrine of popular sovereignty, and the effect upon it 
of the Dred Scott decision. In his speech in the Senate 
on March 3, 1854, in defense of the Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill, Douglas had thus defined popular sovereignty: The 
principle which we propose to carry into effect is this — 
That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any ter- 
ritories or state, nor out of the same; hut the people shall 
he left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 
This was the principle which the Kansas-Nebraska 
Act substituted for the plain provisions of the Missouri 
Compromise. Except in so far as it concerns slavery 



270 NOTES 

Douglas's principle of Popular Sovereignty is identical 
with the principle of individual liberty for which the 
Revolutionary War was fought. (See Douglas at Alton 
212: 12.) The constitutional limitations suggested in 
the final clause of the quotation were left by agreement 
in a caucus of Northern and Southern Democrats to 
the courts to interpret. But the Dred Scott decision 
in 1857 provided the interpretation promised. It de- 
clared that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the 
territories, nor authorize a territorial legislature to do 
so. Thus the Dred Scott decision annihilated "popular 
sovereignty." 

To Douglas was left the task of reconciling his theory 
with the decision of the Supreme Court. If he gave up 
the principle he had so long fought for with such 
prodigious power, and accepted the decision of the 
court, he would thereby make a complete surrender to 
the South and forfeit his entire following in the North. 
That meant the loss of the senatorial campaign of 1858, 
and the destruction of his presidential aspirations for 
i860. If on the other hand he maintained the principle 
and attacked the decision, he forfeited his pledge to the 
South, and occupied the questionable ground of refusing 
to abide by a decision of the highest judicial tribunal. 
Of the two alternatives, the latter was the less destruc- 
tive of his chances in the present campaign; both were 
equally fatal to his presidential ambitions for two years 
hence. The dilemma was sufficiently serious, but his 
presidential more than his senatorial interests were in 
jeopardy. Was it to Lincoln's interest to force the 
issue? Could the resourceful Douglas discover or in- 
vent a way to extricate himself? Could he devise a 
way to reconcile the principle and the decision? 

Since the Lecompton measure of 1857-8 Douglas had 
been employing his principle as a means of resisting 
the encroachments of slavery. To such an extent had he 
thereby separated himself from the Administration and 



NOrBS 271 

its Southern supporters, that many Northern Republi- 
cans sought to see in him a proselyte and new leader 
for their party, and were even supporting him against 
Lincoln in this campaign. If Douglas could satisfy his fol- 
lowers that the people of the territories still had the power 
to reject slavery, notwithstanding the Dred Scott decision, 
Lincoln's attempt to force the issue in this second question 
might result in strengthening this feeling of confidence 
in Douglas as a bulwark against the aggressions of 
the South, and exactly to that extent detract from the 
support of Lincoln. 

Whether Lincoln should put the question to Douglas 
at Freeport or not was the subject of a conference 
the night before the debate, between Mr. Lincoln and a 
number of Republican leaders. All who were there 
counseled Lincoln not to put the question, because he 
would probably answer in the affirmative and secure a 
re-election. " It was their opinion," says Mr. Horace 
White, " that Lincoln should argue strongly from the 
Dred Scott decision, which Douglas endorsed, that the 
people of the territories could tiot lawfully exclude 
slavery prior to the formation of a State Constitution, 
but that he should not force Douglas to say yes or no. 
. . . Mr. Lincoln replied that to draw an affirmative 
answer from Douglas on this question was exactly 
what he wanted, and that his object was to make 
it impossible for Douglas to get the vote of the 
Southern States in the next Presidential election." '' I 
am after larger game," Lincoln is said to have re- 
marked ; " the battle of i860 is worth a hundred of 
this." 

The following extract from Nicolay and Hay's Life 
of Lincoln, (vol. ii. p. 159), is pertinent: 

" Nearly a month before, Lincoln in a private letter ac- 
curately foreshadowed Do.uglas's course on this ques- 
tion. ' You shall have hard work to get him directly to 
the point whether a territorial legislature has or has 



272 NOTES 

not the power to exclude slavery. But if you succeed 
in bringing him to it — though he will be compelled to 
say it possesses no such power — he will instantly take 
ground that slavery cannot actually exist in the ter- 
ritories unless the people desire it and so give it protec- 
tion by territorial legislation. If this offends the 
South, he will let it offend them, as at all events he 
means to hold on to his chances in Illinois.' " 

The question was put, and Douglas's reply formulated 
what is known as the " Freeport theory of ' unfriendly 
legislation.' " In a subsequent speech in Ohio Lincoln 
paraphrased it as a policy which provided that " a thing 
may lawfully be driven away from a place where it has 
a lawful right to be." (See Douglas's further state- 
ment of his position on page 96:30 et seq.) But to the 
whole South it gave mortal offense, for, while profess- 
ing allegiance to the Dred Scott decision, it put in the 
hands of the opponents of slavery in every territory 
a means of making the decision of none effect. Of 
this " Freeport theory," to which Douglas had already 
given local expression on one or two occasions, a lead- 
ing historian says: "This answer attracted more at- 
tention than any statement of Douglas during the 
campaign; and, while he could not have been elected 
Senator without taking that position, the enunciation 
of the doctrine was an insuperable obstacle to cement- 
ing the division in the Democratic party. The influence 
of this meeting at Freeport is an example of the 
greater interest incited by a joint debate than by an 
ordinary canvass, and illustrates the effectiveness of 
the Socratic method of reasoning. During this same 
campaign Douglas had twice before declared the same 
doctrine in expressions fully as plain and forcible, 
but without creating any particular remark; while now 
the country resounded with discussions of the Free- 
port theory of * unfriendly legislation.' " (J. F. 
Rhodes: Hist, of U. S., ii. p. 328.) 



NOTES 273 

Douglas never regained the Southern support lost 
as a consequence of this reply. The feeling of the 
South toward him is expressed in this utterance from 
a speech by Senator Benjamin of Louisiana in the Sen- 
ate, May 22, i860: " It is impossible that confidence thus 
lost can be restored. On what ground has that con- 
fidence been forfeited, and why is it that we now refuse 
to him our support and fellowship? . . . 

"We accuse him for this, to wit: that having bar- 
gained with us upon a point upon which we were at 
issue that it should be considered a judicial point; that 
he would abide by the decision; that he would act under 
the decision, and consider it a doctrine of the party; that 
having said that to us here in the Senate, he went 
home, and under the stress of a local election, his knees 
gave way; his whole person trembled. His adversary 
stood upon principle and was beaten; and lo! he is 
the candidate of a mighty party for the Presidency of 
the United States. The Senator from Illinois faltered. 
He got the prize for which he faltered; but lo! the grand 
prize of his ambition to-day slips from his grasp because 
of his faltering in his former contest, and his success 
in the canvass for the Senate, purchased for an ignoble 
price, has cost him the loss of the Presidency of the 
United States." 

36: 12. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satis- 
factory. Observe the splendid assurance which char- 
acterizes Douglas's reply in this destructive dilemma, 
strongest here where his position is logically weakest. 
(See Lincoln's reply at Alton, 199-201.) 

36: 15. In relation to Mr. Chase's amendment. In 
reply to Lincoln's allegation, 26:8. (See note on 
same passage.) 

38: 13. Question 3. If the Supreme Court of the 
United States shall decide that states cannot exclude 
slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing 
in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of 



274 NOTES 

political action? If the same question had been asked 
in 1830 or 1840 regarding a hypothetical decision that 
territories, instead of states, could not exclude slavery 
from their limits, it would hardly have seemed more 
startling. (See Johnston: American Orations, iii, 388.) 
Among the most embarrassing aspects of Lincoln's 
position was that which required him to attack a de- 
cision of the Supreme Court of the United States, It 
was theoretically easy to maintain that the decision 
was law, and must be recognized as such while it 
existed, but that it was wrong in principle and would 
ultimately cease to be law. But the position was a 
hard one to maintain through a series of debates, for 
the American people have always been quick to resent 
any criticism of the decrees of their highest judicial 
tribunal. 

Hence Lincoln reveals good strategy by anticipating 
Douglas's attack, and seeking to make Douglas meet 
the troublesome issue in an analogous form, first. 
Properly enough, however, since he has always denied 
the existence of any conspiracy to introduce slavery 
into the states, Douglas refuses to admit that such a 
decision is possible, and thus declines to assume the 
burden offered him. Lincoln returns to the matter in 
the Galesburgh debate (p. 118.) See also note on 139:2. 

39:3. Seward, and Hale, and Wilson. William H. 
Seward, Senator from New York, was at this time the 
National Republican leader; later he was Lincoln's chief 
competitor for the presidential nomination, but was 
Secretary of State in his rival's cabinet throughout the 
Civil War, John P. Hale and Henry Wilson were 
Senators from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, 
respectively. 

39:7. Mr. Toombs of Georgia. Robert Toombs was 
a leader of the secession forces in the Senate during 
the years just before the Civil War — one of the ablest, 
most uncompromising and aggressive statesmen, and one 



NOTES 275 

of the most eloquent orators of his party, honest and out- 
spoken. 

39:26. Question 4. Are you in favor of acquiring 
additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition 
may effect the nation on the slavery question? This 
question closely correlates with Question 7 in the series 
propounded by Judge Douglas at Ottawa. (See 17:1, 
ct seq.) The significance of this question and Lin- 
coln's attitude toward the matter involved is made 
plain in Lincoln's discussion at Galesburgh (pp. 125- 
129). Among those indifferent to the spread of slavery 
Douglas's reply was no doubt as popular then ^s 
similar doctrines have been since. From the point 
of view of those believers in national expansion — who 
could, like Douglas, close their eyes to the moral evil 
of slavery, Lincoln was here forced to the unpopular 
side. 

42:5. Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred. Douglass. 
Noted Abolitionists, all. Owen Lovejoy (1811-64) was 
a Republican representative in Congress from 1856 to 
1862. John F. Farnsworth was a lawyer of Chicago — 
who served three terms in Congress. Frederick Doug- 
lass (1817-1895), a mulatto ex-slave, was widely known 
as an orator in the anti-slavery cause. 

43:7. A platform . . . adopted by the Black 
Republican Party at Springfield in 1854. Douglas re- 
plies to the charge of Lincoln made in his opening 
speech (21:20, et seq.). See the annotation thereon. 

43:25. He declared the Mexican War to be unjust 
and infamous, and would not support it. In general the 
Mexican War was condemned throughout the North, 
except by those who were favorable to the extension of 
slavery. In the Charleston debate of Sept. 18, Lincoln 
replied to the charge of Douglas as follows: 

" [Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the 
platform, and selecting Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, led 
him forward, and said: — ] 



2'](i NOTES 

" I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Ficklin 
except to present his face and tell you that he person- 
ally knows it to be a lie. He was a member of Congress 
at the only time I was in Congress, and knows that 
whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote 
of mine which would endorse the origin and justice of 
the war, I refused to give such endorsement, and voted 
against it; but I never voted against the supplies for 
the army and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, 
that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensa- 
tion, otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, / gave' 
all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did, and perhaps 
more." 

Mr. Ficklin thereupon publicly corroborated Mr. 
Lincoln's statement. 

47:8. The following (Rockford) platform. This 
platform is almost identical with the alleged Springfield 
platform of 1854, printed on page 260, over which the 
original dispute arose. 

49:30. The Crittenden-Montgomery Bill. This 
measure is described in the annotation upon Lincoln's 
first question. (See p. 268.) 

50:6. The Black Republican Party. The organiza- 
tion of the Republican party of the disrupted elements 
of the Northern Whigs, Anti-Nebraska Democrats, and 
Free-Soilers, began in local centers in 1854. Its first 
national convention was held in 1856, and nominated 
Fremont and Dayton as candidates for President 
and Vice-President. Opposition to the extension of 
slavery to the territories was the strong tie which 
bound the members of the new party to a single 
platform. 

The charge of a corrupt bargain between Trumbull 
and Lincoln to capture the organization of the new 
party, abolitionize it, and divide the spoils, which 
Douglas now makes with considerable elaboration, is 
denied by Lincoln in his rejoinder and in other speeches 



NOTES 277 

in the campaign. The charge rests upon no evidence. 
(See note on 54: 17.) 

50:27. Giddings. Joshua R. Giddings (1795-1864) 
was one of the ablest anti-slavery leaders in Congress 
during most of the period from 1838 to 1859. 

51:3 Clay and Webster. These statesmen were the 
leaders during this period of the Southern and Northern 
Whigs respectively. The Whig party, both North and 
South, believed that the preservation of the Union was 
of supreme importance. To ensure this they favored 
compromises with the slave power. The Northern 
Whigs were not, like the Democrats, blind to the 
right or wrong of slavery. They believed it, however, 
subordinate in importance to the maintenance of the 
Union. 

51:7. A bank, . . . distribution, the specie cir- 
cular, (a) The attempt to renew the charter of the 
Second United States Bank, which expired in 1836, was 
defeated by President Jackson, and his veto was sus- 
tained at the polls in the succeeding national election. 
(b) The proposition to distribute the surplus of the 
national Treasury among the states was at various 
times a party issue, (c) The Specie Circular, issued 
in 1836, required that payments for public lands should, 
in all ordinary cases, be made in gold and silver. It 
was opposed by those who were interested in the 
prevailing inflation of the time, and in credit 
schemes. 

51:13. Cass . . . Fillmore. Cass was a Demo- 
crat, and Fillmore a Whig. 

52:7. John Wentworth. John Wentworth (1815- 
88) was editor of the Chicago Democrat from 1836 to 
1861, and a representative in Congress for three terms. 
Beginning a Democrat, he became a Whig, and later a 
Republican under the influence of the Kansas-Nebraska 
legislation. 

54:8. General Shields. General James A. Shields 



278 NOTES 

(1810-79), a soldier in the Mexican War, was United 
States Senator from Illinois from 1849 to 1855. Later 
he served with distinction in the Civil War. He is said 
to have been the only general who ever defeated 
" Stonewall " Jackson, 

54: 17. When Lincoln was beaten for Shield's place. 
Douglas never afforded any evidence to sustain this 
charge. The facts as recorded in Morse's Life of Lin- 
coln (Vol. i. p. 96) are. as follows: On Feb. 8, 1855, 
the legislature began to ballot for Senator. The first 
ballot resulted: Lincoln (Whig), 45, Shields (Douglas 
Democrat), 41, Trumbull (Anti-Nebraska Democrat), 
5, Scattering, 5. After several ballots, Lincoln fell to 
15 votes and Trumbull rose to 35, but Matteson, who 
had been substituted for Shields, had 47 ballots, and 
his election was imminent. "Lincoln's weakness lay 
in the fact that the Abolitionists had too loudly praised 
him, and publicly counted him as one of themselves." 
For this reason five Democrats, supporters of Trumbull, 
were as bitter against Lincoln as they were against 
the candidate of Douglas, Matteson, " Lincoln could 
count upon his fifteen adherents to the extremity; but 
the five anti-Douglas Democrats were equally staunch 
against him, so that his chance was evidently gone. 
Trumbull was a Democrat, but he was opposed to the 
policy of Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Bill; his follow- 
ing was not altogether trustworthy, and a trifling de- 
fection from it seemed likely to occur and make out 
Matteson's majority. Lincoln pondered briefly; then 
subjecting all else to the great principle of * anti- 
Nebraska,' he urged his friends to transfer their votes 
to Trumbull. With grumbling and reluctance they did 
so, and by this aid on the tenth ballot, Trumbull was 
elected." 

59:19. Either Mr. Lincoln was then committed to 
those propositions . . . violated his pledge. Is the 
alternative fairly proved? 



NOTES 279 

61:19. "In my opinion it will not cease until" . . . 
See the opening paragraph of the Springfield Speech, and 
the annotation thereon. 

63 : 20. I will retire in shame from the United States 
Senate. Note the skill of Douglas in developing pre- 
judice against his opponent. Is the method justifiable 
as here used? 

64:19. Mr. Buchanan was ... in England. 
James Buchanan was Minister to England from 1853 
to 1856. 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 

72:22. Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon 
the Editor of the Washington '* Union " alone. See the 

annotation upon the passage on 32:2. 

73: 13. He had an eye farther north than he has 
to-day. Douglas's revolt from the Administration on 
the Lecompton matter aroused a suspicion on the part 
of many that he intended to become a Republican. 
See 77:31, et seq. 



THE FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH 

October 7, 1858 

The debate at Freeport, read to-day, clearly reveals 
Lincoln's supremacy in the great struggle. Events 
have long vindicated the soundness of his moral and 
political philosophy, and the ultimate wisdom of his 
strategy. Yet at the hour anxiety and alarm filled 
the minds of his advisers. " After the debate was 
finished," says Mr. Horace White (Herndon's Life of 
Lincoln, ii. no) "we Republicans did not feel very 
happy. We held the same opinion that Mr. Judd 
and Dr. Ray had — that Douglas's answer (to Lincoln's 
second question) had probably saved him from defeat. 



28o NOTES 

We did not look forward, and we did not look South, 
and even if we had done so, we were too much enlisted 
in this campaign to swap it for another one which was 
two years distant." 

Between the debate at Freeport and that at Gales- 
burgh, besides numerous individual campaign speeches 
by each candidate, occurred the joint debates at Jones- 
boro, on September 15, and at Charleston, on September 
18. Jonesboro was in Southern Illinois, and strong in 
pro-slavery sentiment. However, the place was a 
stronghold of the " Danites " or Buchanan Democrats, 
and therefore favorable to neither of the candidates. 
The audience was small and there was little enthusiasm. 
The debate at Charleston, in a region where the can- 
didates had about equal following, drew an enormous 
crowd. The fever of the campaign was now well-nigh 
at its height. " Over long, weary miles of hot dusty 
prairie [writes an eye-witness], the processions of 
eager partisans come on foot, or horseback, in wagons 
drawn by horses or mules . . . pushing on in 
clouds of dust under a blazing sun . . . waiting in 
anxious groups for hours at the places of speaking." 
In this debate Lincoln produced documents to prove 
that Douglas had in 1856 tried to bring Kansas into the 
Union without allowing her people to vote upon their 
constitution. Douglas was hard pressed, and in 
the opinion of his friends Lincoln scored a distinct 
victory. 

Nearly three weeks later the contestants met at 
Galesburgh. Mr. White (Herndon's Life of Lincoln, 
ii. 123) describes the circumstances as follows: 

'* Here we had the largest audience of the whole series 
and the worst day, the weather being very cold and 
raw, notwithstanding which, the people flocked from 
far and near. One feature of the Republican procession 
was a division of one hundred ladies and an equal 
number of gentlemen on horseback as a special escort 



NOTES 281 

to the carriage containing Mr. Lincoln. The whole 
country seemed to be swarming and the crowd stood 
three hours in the college grounds, in a cutting wind, 
listening to the debate. Mr. Lincoln's speech at Gales- 
burgh was, in my judgment, the best of the series." 

The student should notice the altering status of the 
speakers as the campaign reaches its height. Douglas, 
with unabated assurance, continues the lines of attack 
and defense which he had marked out at the begin- 
ning of the campaign. But in Lincoln is growing a 
profounder sense of the tremendous and universal im- 
port of the real issue which lies at the bottom of party 
differences. With skill rapidly disciplined under the 
stress and shock of the attack of the greatest parlia- 
mentary debater of his time, Lincoln discards more 
and more whatever is local and personal in his argu- 
ment. Before his clarifying vision loom with growing 
distinctness the larger aspects of the great issue — 
matters, not of personalities or politics, but of principle, 
phases of the national and universal issue — the great 
moral wrong of slavery. 

The debates at Galesburgh present two of these larger 
aspects of the struggle not emphasized in the Freeport 
debate. They are the questions whether negroes have 
any share in the Declaration of Independence; and 
whether the Republican party represents a sectional, 
instead of a national movement. Aside from these two 
vital aspects of the debate the topics of discussion at 
Galesburgh are the same as those at Freeport. In ad- 
dition to analyzing new arguments, the student should 
therefore concern himself, aside from the parry and 
thrust of each individual encounter, with the diminish- 
ing or growing emphasis upon specific issues as the 
campaign unfolds itself; with the appearance and 
manipulation of fresh evidence; with tendencies on the 
part of either debater to shift his ground, or to alter 
the character or form of his argument as he approaches 



282 NOTES 

audiences of different sympathies, and as the campaign 
becomes more intense. From this point onward the 
annotation will seek only to correlate matters under 
discussion, to explain the few matters of historical 
reference not already explained, and to be merely sug- 
gestive upon points of logical or persuasive process. 
The arguments upon the questions whether negroes 
are included in the Declaration of Independence, and 
upon the charge of sectionalism, are so clear and uni- 
versal in their character as to need little special annota- 
tion. 

MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 

80: 17. The Lecompton Constitution. What exigency 
of the campaign induces Douglas to devote nearly 
one-third of his opening speech in this debate to the 
Lecompton question, upon which he and Lincoln are 
in essential agreement? (Compare Lincoln's speech at 
Alton, p. 166.) 

83 : 24. The effort has been made ... by certain 
postmasters. See the annotation upon 33:7. (Lincoln's 
first question to Douglas.) 

84: 16. Groesbeck and Pendleton and Cox. (i) 
William S. Groesbeck (1815-1877), was a Democratic 
representative from Ohio from 1857 to 1859. At the 
impeachment of President Johnson in 1868 he was 
leading counsel for the defense. (2) George H. Pendel- 
ton (1825-1889) was at this time a Democratic rep- 
resentative. In i860 he lacked 2 1-2 votes of the nomi- 
nation of his party for the Presidency. (3) S. S. Cox 
(1824-1889) lived a long, varied, and conspicuous politi- 
cal and diplomatic career. From 1857 onward he served 
three terms in Congress. 

84:21. The Joneses of Pennsylvania. One of the 
"Joneses of Pennsylvania" was Jehu G. Jones (1811- 
78), a representative from 1851-8, and later minister to 
Austria. 



NOTES 283 

87:8. The Republican party is availing itself of un- 
worthy means. Has Douglas established the truth of 
his charge? Is it plausible? 

87:30. But now you have a sectional organization. 
For another presentation of this issue by Douglas, see 
the Alton debate, p. 144, and Lincoln's speech in reply, 
p. 179; see also especially the Cooper Institute Address, p. 
230. 

88: 16. The Old Dominion. Virginia. 

89:3. Garrison. William Lloyd Garrison (1805- 
1879) was perhaps the most radical and conspicuous of 
the New England Abolitionists. He was almost anar- 
chistic in his denunciation of the Constitution as " a 
Covenant with Death, and an agreement with Hell." 

89: 30. The doctrine of the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence. Douglas recurs to this argument at Alton. (See 
page 163, and especially Lincoln's Reply, pp. 171 to 178.) 

97 '.3. How is it that in a territory the peo-ple can do 
as they please on the slavery question under the Dred 
Scott decision? See annotation of 35:12, Lincoln's 
second interrogatory to Douglas. 

98:12. Mr. Orr of South Carolina. James L. Orr 
(1822-1873) was a representative from 1848 to 1858, and a 
conspicuous Southern leader. 

MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 

Does Mr. Lincoln gain in confidence and assurance 
since the Freeport debate? Are there gains in other 
respects? Does he seek merely to answer his op- 
ponent now? 

102:26. He spoke . • . not venturing to use the 
word Democrat. What condition continues to embar- 
rass Douglas? Why should Lincoln have hesitated to 
use the word Republican in all circumstances of the 
campaign? 

103:2. The National Democracy. Douglas's rupture 



284 NOTES 

with the National Democracy occurred in 1857 over the 
Lecompton issue. 

106:4. The people of Chicago would not let Judge 
Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine. On Sept. 
I, 1854, Senator Douglas addressed a mass meeting in 
Chicago in defense of his Kansas-Nebraska Act. Pub- 
lic sentiment was bitter against him. " When the time 
came, flags at half-mast, and the dismal tolling of church 
bells welcomed him. A vast and silent crowd was gath- 
ered, but not to hear him. Hisses and groans broke in 
upon his opening sentences. Hour after hour, from 
eight o'clock until midnight he stood before them; time 
and again, as the uproar lessened, his voice combated 
it; but they would not let him speak. . . . On the 
way home his carriage was set upon and he was in 
danger of his life." (W. G. Brown: Stephen A. Doug- 
las, p. 96.) 

107:30. The Compromise of 1850. See Introduction. 
Lincoln's explanation which now follows is accurate 
and detailed. 

112:29. He had . . . more to do with . . . the 
Lecompton Constitution than Buchanan had. See the 
reference to the Charleston debate in the preliminary 
note upon the Galesburgh debate. 

113: II. The opponents of the Democratic party were 
divided. Fremont was the Republican nominee; Fill- 
more, that of the Know-Nothings and Whigs. 

113:30. A set of resolutions . . . in October, 1854. 
See the Freeport debate (Lincoln) 21:20 et seq. and 
(Douglas) 43-49, with annotation upon the former 
reference. 

118: 13. If the Supreme Court . . . shall decide 
. . . are you in favor of acquiescing. See 38: 13 et 
seq. and the annotation thereon. 

119:30. Nothing in the constitution of any state can 
destroy. The precision of Lincoln's logic finds in this 
syllogism an excellent exemplification. 



NOTES 285 

121:18. The new Dred Scott decision. See the 

Springfield Speech (8: 17,) and the hitter half of the 
annotation upon (31:2.) 

122:1. General Jackson . . . the political obliga- 
tion of a Supreme Court decision. In 1832, General 
Jackson practically refused to enforce a decision of the 
Supreme Court against the state of Georgia. 

122: 12. The Cincinnati platform. This Democratic 
platform of 1856 atifirmed that Congress cannot charter 
a National Bank, though the Supreme Court had 
decided that the Bank, whose charter expired in 1836, 
was constitutional. 

122: 16. He himself was one ... in breaking 
down the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois. In 
1841, a Democratic legislature reconstructed the legis- 
lature in such a way as to increase the number of 
judges. Douglas, less than twenty-eight years old, was 
named for one of the new places. 

125: 16. Are you opposed to the acquisition of further 
territory, unless slavery is prohibited? See 20:5, and 
annotation thereon. 

125:25: Are you in favor of acquiring territory in 
disregard of . . . slavery? See 30: 26, and annotation. 

MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 
135: Does Mr. Lincoln vnsh to push these things 
to the point of personal difficulties here? Has Douglas 
really answered Lincoln on this much vexed issue? 

136:25. And yet Lincoln . . . will not . . . 
sanction. . . . the doctrine of no mfore slave states. 
Is this a fair restatement of Lincoln's position at Free- 
port (18:5.)? 

139:2. Suppose he succeeds in destroying public 
confidence in the court. In reference to the nature of 
his .opposition to the Dred Scott decision, Mr. Lincoln 
in his opening speech in the debate at Quincy, one 
week later, made the following statement: 



286 NOTES 

" We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, 
upon which I ought perhaps to address you a few 
words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has 
been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, 
will decide him to be free. We do not propose that, 
when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided 
by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way 
disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we 
nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule 
which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody 
who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the 
members of Congress or the President to favor no 
measure that does not actually concur with the princi- 
ples of that decision. We do not propose to be bound 
by it as a political rule in that way, because we think 
it lays the foundation, not merely of enlarging and 
spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the 
foundations for spreading that evil into the states 
themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it 
reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established 
upon this subject." 



THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE* AT ALTON 
Ottober 15, 1858 

On October 13 Mr. Lincoln met Douglas, in the sixth 
debate of the series, at Quincy. Like Galesburgh, the 
region was one in which each of the candidates had a 
good following. Lincoln, with continually increasing 
insistence, forced the issue of the right or wrong of 
slavery. Douglas, indifferent, always, to this issue, or 
feigning to be indifferent, generally chose to ignore 
it, but in this debate, he specifically declined in the follow- 
ing language to discuss it: 

" He tells you that I will not argue the question 
whether slavery is right or wrong. I will tell you why 



NOTES 287 

I will not do it. I hold that under the Constitution of 
the United States, each state of this Union has a right 
to do as it pleases on the subject of slavery. In 
Illinois we have exercised that sovereign right by pro- 
hibiting slavery within our own limits. I approve of that 
line of policy. We have done our whole duty in Illinois. 
We have gone as far as we had a right to go under 
the Constitution of our common country. It is none of 
our business whether slavery exists in Missouri or not. 
Missouri is a sovereign state of this Union, and has 
the same right to decide the slavery question for her- 
self that Illinois has to decide it for herself. Hence I 
do not choose to occupy the time allotted to me in dis- 
cussing a question that we have no right to act upon." 

The student may now compare the issues in this 
debate with those of the Freeport meeting. Upon 
what issues do they still meet each other squarely? 
Does either of them give time to discussion of matters 
upon which the debaters themselves are in agreement? 
If so, for what reason? To what extent do they diverge 
from one another, in failing to meet squarely upon 
what one or the other insists are the real issues of the 
campaign? Does either of the speakers show any 
motive in his debating beyond defeating his opponent 
in the immediate campaign? If such a motive exists, 
in what terms may it be defined? Does Lincoln in 
this speech in Southern Illinois give substantiation to 
Douglas's charge that he has one doctrine for one part 
of the state, and another for a different part? What 
likenesses or contrasts exist in the kinds of persuasion 
which arise in this debate from the character of the two 
speakers? Compare their literary styles. 

** The campaign," says Mr. Horace White, " was now 
drawing rapidly to a close. Everybody who had borne 
an active part in it was pretty well fagged out, except 
Mr. Lincoln. He showed no signs of fatigue. Doug- 
las's voice was worn down to extreme huskiness. He 



288 NOTES 

took great pains to save what was left of his throat, 
but to listen to him moved one's pity. Nevertheless, he 
went on doggedly, bravely, and with a jaunty air of 
confidence. Mr. Lincoln's voice was as clear and far- 
reaching as it was . . . two months before — a high 
pitched tenor, almost a falsetto, that could be heard 
at a greater distance than Douglas's heavy basso." 
The attendance at the debate was the sriiallest of 
the series except that at Jonesboro — and, as at that 
place, the audience held strong pro-slavery opinions. 
For a second time Douglas was " trotting Lincoln 
down" to the abiding place of pro-slavery sentiment 
in Illinois. 

In this debate Lincoln, for the first time in the 
speeches of this volume, deals with the constitutionality 
of slavery. In this debate, too, he deals less than on any 
other with issues arising out of the politics of the day; — 
more clearly than in any other debate he builds his 
argument upon the high moral plane of the right or 
wrong of slavery. 

146:22. Imagine . . . that Mr. Lincoln had been a 
member of the Convention that framed the Constitu- 
tion. Compare this argument, and Lincoln's reply, 
beginning p. 182, with the opening sections of the 
speech at Cooper Institute. 

148:2. Slavery was abolished in . . . New Jer- 
sey. New Jersey abolished slavery in 1804, being the 
seventh and last of the original thirteen states so to do. 

148:25. The admission of . . . slave states. See 
18:5, and annotation. 

144: 17. His proposition . . . Union could not 
exist as our fathers made it. See Douglas, 87:30, and 
Lincoln's reply, 105:13; also the Cooper Institute 
Address, 230. 

151: I. The contract with Texas. In 1845, Congress 
by joint action " passed a resolution providing for the 
admission of Texas, and, with her consent, the forma- 



NOTES 289 

tion of four additional states out of the territory in 
states formed north of the line of 36° 30' north latitude, 
slavery to be prohibited. . . . Texas accepted the 
terms and at the next session of Congress was formally 
admitted." (Rhodes' History of U. S., i. 85.) 

152:7. The Lecompton Constitution (and Kansas.) 
See Introduction; also, 33:7, and annotation thereon. 

158:30. Nullification. In 1832, maintaining that a 
state can for its own purposes annul an Act of Con- 
gress, South Carolina passed the famous Ordinance of 
Nullification, declaring that acts of Congress relating to 
the collection of tariffs should not be binding in the 
ports of that state. The state threatened the use of 
force, but the firm stand of President Jackson saved 
the day, and South Carolina rescinded the Ordinance 
on March 2, 1833. 

162:1. Hon. Jefferson Davis. The subsequent Presi- 
dent of the Confederacy was at this time the Senator 
from Mississippi, and leader of his party in the Senate. 

163:25. The Abolition party thinks that under the 
Declaration . . . the negro is equal. See the Gales- 
burgh debate (89:30), and Lincoln's response in open- 
ing his Reply (loi). 

MR. LINCOLN^S REPLY 

167: 18. The valiant advocate of the Missouri Com- 
promise. This was before 1854, when the Kansas- 
Nebraska Bill was presented. 

168:22. The Dred Scott decision in my Springfield 
speech. See 8: 17, and annotation. 

170:4. I desire to place myself in connection with 
Mr. Clay, as nearly right. The voters to whom Mr. 
Lincoln now addresses his plea are old line Whigs, 
followers of Clay, men who in this locality may have 
favored slavery — but considered the maintenance of the 
Union of more importance. 



290 NOTES 

170: II. He read upon a former occasion ... a 
speech ... at Chicago. See 89 et seq. 

171:30. Negroes were not included in the Declara- 
tion of Independence. See 89:30 et seq. in Douglas's 
speech at Galesburgh, and Lincoln's Reply (101-102). 

179:22. "We are now far into the fifth year." See 
i: I, and annotation upon i: 12. 

180:23. Mr. Crittenden. Senator Crittenden of Ken- 
tucky, joint author of the Crittenden-Montgomery Com- 
promise (see amiotation upon 33:7). Crittenden was 
a Kentucky Whig, and his support of Douglas in 
this campaign was a keen disappointment to Mr. 
Lincoln. 

182:5. Where the public mind should rest in the 
belief that it was in course of tdtimate extinction. Is 
Lincoln distinct upon this point? Does Lincoln deal 
effectively with the economic aspects of slavery or with 
its remedies? 

182:26. Slavery . . . in the Constitution. Seethe 
first half of the Cooper Institute address. 

189:12. What divided the great Methodist Church 
. . . Presbyterian General Assembly. Both these 
denominations were divided into Northern and South- 
ern churches during the anti-slavery agitation. 

192:21. The real issue in this controversy. Com- 
pare with Douglas's statement (pp. 142-3). 

199:2. Brooks of South Carolina. Preston S. 
Brooks, who assaulted Charles Sumner on the floor of 
the Senate, on May 22, 1856, after Senator Sumner had 
severely arraigned Senator Butler of South Carolina, a 
relative of Brooks, in a speech on the Kansas question. 

199: By the invention of the cotton-gin. The cot- 
ton-gin, invented by Eli Whitney in 1793, multiplied the 
cotton-picking capacity of a slave by fifty. The result- 
ing demand for negro labor had an essential bearing 
on the slavery issue. 

199: 2L'. This argument . . . sustains the Dred 



NOTES 291 

Scott decision (and) still excludes slavery. See 35: 12 

and annotation. 

201:5. Most of us believe . . . Congressional 
Fugitive Slave Law. See 17:21 and annotation. 

205:6. The lead of Corwin. Thomas Corvvin (i794- 
1865), a statesman of varied and important service from 
1830 till his death. As Whig and later as Republican 
he served as Representative, Senator, Governor of his 
native state of Ohio, as a member of Taylor's and 
Fillmore's Cabinet. 

206:11. Have you read General Singleton's speech? 
This is " new material in rebuttal." 



THE COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH 
Feb. 27, i860 

With the conclusion of the senatorial campaign of 
1858, Mr. Lincoln, although a defeated candidate, had 
become a leader of national significance. Only Seward, 
among Republicans, equaled him in prestige. The 
desire to see and hear him was general throughout the 
East. In the fall of 1859 he was invited to deliver a 
"political lecture" before the Young Men's Central 
Republican Union of New York City. The invitation 
was accepted and the address was given in Cooper 
Institute on Feb. 27, i860, before a large audience in 
which were many of the most influential men of the 
city. William Cullen Bryant was the presiding officer. 
•' Since the days of Cliay and Webster," said the Tribune, 
" no man has spoken to a larger assemblage of the 
intellect and culture of the city." 

But the curiosity of the public in regard to Lincoln's 
personality was perhaps equaled by his own wish to 
test his arguments and his personal power upon the 
different tradition and culture of an Eastern audience. 
His address was more laboriously prepared than any 



292 NOTES 

other of his life — yet he had strong misgivings about its 
reception, and as he at last stepped before the audience 
at the invitation of Mr. Bryant he felt miseries of 
embarrassment from his sense of the unaccustomed 
conditions, the critical and refined audience, his own 
ungainliness, and his ill-fitting and wrinkled clothes. 
But as the fervor of speaking grew upon him, his con- 
sciousness of these things faded away, while the audi- 
ence with attention fixed upon the argument unfolding 
in matchless clearness and precision, saw only the sway- 
ing figure of one transfigured by lofty moral earnestness 
and the vision of a high ideal — " If any part of the audi- 
ence," say Nicolay and Hay in their account, " came 
with the expectation of hearing the rhetorical fireworks 
of the ' half-horse, half-alligator * variety, they met 
novelty of an unlooked for kind. In Lincoln's entire 
address he neither introduced an anecdote nor essayed 
a witticism; and the first half of it does not contain 
even an illustrative figure or a poetical fancy. It was 
the quiet searching exposition of the historian, and the 
terse, compact reasoning of the statesman, about an 
abstract principle of philosophy in language well-nigh 
as restrained and colorless as he would have employed 
in arguing a case before a court. Yet such was the apt 
choice of words, the easy precision of sentences, the 
simple strength of propositions, the fairness of every 
point he assumed, and the force of every conclusion he 
drew — that his listeners followed him with the interest 
and delight a child feels in its easy mastery of a plain 
sum in arithmetic." 

The effect of the speech was remarkable. All the 
daily papers printed it in full on the following day. 
The Tribune, said: "Mr. Lincoln is one of nature's 
orators. . . . The tones, the gestures, the kindling 
eye, and the mirth-provoking look defy the reporter's 
skill. The vast assemblage frequently rang with cheers 
and shouts of applause, which were prolonged and 



NOTES 293 

intensified at the close. No man ever before made 
such an impression upon a New York audience." 

" Before Lincohi made his Cooper Institute Speech/' 
says Rhodes (Hist, of U. S. vol. ii. p. 458), "the men- 
tion of his name as a possible nominee for President 
would have been considered a joke anywhere except in 
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa." This and his other 
Eastern speeches, however, " made it patent that he 
might become a formidable opponent of Seward." 

In criticism upon the speech, Horace Greeley, in a 
lecture published in the Century Magazine for July, 
1892, has made this striking comment upon its quality: 
" Every citizen has certain conceptions, recollections, 
convictions, notions, prejudices, which to>gether make 
up what he terms his politics. The canvasser's art 
consists in making him believe and feel that an over- 
ruling majority of these preconceptions ally him to that 
side whereof said canvasser is the champion. In other 
words he seeks to belittle those points whereon his 
auditor is at odds with him, and emphasizes those 
wherein they two are in accord; thus persuading the 
hearer to sympathize, act, and vote with the speaker. 
And with this conception in view, I do not hesitate to 
pronounce Mr. Lincoln's speech at Cooper Institute in 
the spring of i860 the very best political address to 
which I ever listened, and I have heard some of Web- 
ster's grandest. As a literary effort, it would not of 
course bear comparison with many of Webster's 
speeches; but regarded as an effort to convince the 
largest possible number that they ought to be on the 
speaker's side, not on the other, I do not hesitate to 
pronounce it unsurpassed." 

Divested, as it is, of the personality of debate and the 
incidents of local politics; developed without the restric- 
tions imposed by the conditions of public debate, the 
Cooper Institute address is, in form and in substance, 
the best statement of the broad and universal princi- 



294 NOTES 

pies of the anti-slavery argument made prior to the 
Civil War. The student will find it profitable to com- 
pare it with Lincoln's speeches in the Freeport Debate, 
with the view of contrasting its superiority in the art 
of expression. As showing the minute thoroughness 
of its preparation, it is said to have taken the New 
York Tribune three weeks to verify the statements of 
fact in this address. 

215: 17. That wing of the Democracy headed by 
Senator Douglas. In i860 Douglas was the candidate 
of the Northern Democracy for the presidency. 

216: 19. Does the proper division of local from 
Federal authority. . . . The issue thus succinctly 
stated was of course a controlling issue of the previous 
debates. See Lincoln's second question in the Freeport 
Debate, p. 21. 

216:31. In 1784. In this year Jefferson reported to 
the Congress of the Confederation " an ordinance that 
provided for the prohibition of slavery after the year 
1800, above the parallel of 31° north latitude." (Rhodes: 
Hist, of U. S. i. 15.) The measure failed to pass by 
one vote, to Jefferson's keen disappointment. 

219:10. North Carolina ceded . . . the state of 
Tennessee. " In 1790 Congress had accepted the ces- 
sion of North Carolina back lands on the express con- 
dition that slavery there be undisturbed." Dubois: 
Suppression of the Slave Trade, p. 88. 

219:12. A few years later Georgia ceded . . . 
Mississippi and Alabama. In 1798 this cession was 
accepted by Congress. 

231 : 10. The warning against sectional parties given 
by Washington in his Farewell Address. The passage 
alluded to includes the following: "It is of infinite 
moment that you should properly estimate the immense 
value of your National Union to your collective and 
individual happiness, that you should cherish a cordial, 
habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming 



NOTES 295 

yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium 
of your political safety and prosperity; watching for 
its preservation with jealous anxiety; . . . and indig- 
nantly frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt 
to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, 
or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together 
the various parts." 

233:18. What is your proof? Harper's Ferry! 
John Brown's raid upon Harper's Ferry, beginning 
Oct. 16, 1859, was one of the most dramatic episodes of 
the anti-slavery agitation before the outbreak of the 
Civil War. John Brown, a native of Connecticut, with 
his sons an active participant in the Kansas border 
warfare in 1856, began early in 1857, on the pretext of 
securing aid for that contest, to collect material secretly 
for an invasion of Virginia; also to drill a military 
company. He gradually enlisted the sympathy and se- 
cured some contributions from Northern Abolitionists. 
But the impracticable character of the man and his 
enterprise for destroying slavery in Virginia became 
quickly apparent to most of them. Undaunted by his 
slender support, however, he appeared in Virginia in 
July, 1859, and for about three months was plotting the 
capture of Harper's Ferry, a small town in which was 
located a government arsenal. Brown's idea was that 
the slaves would flock to his standard as soon as it was 
raised, and that by arming them and withdrawing his 
force to the mountains, he would presently create an 
insurrection sufficiently formidable to destroy the sys- 
tem of slavery in Virginia and perhaps eventually 
throughout the South. 

On Oct. 16, 1859, he captured the government arsenal 
with his force of eighteen men. For two days he held 
the works against an increasing force of assailants. At 
length Brevet Col. Robt. E. Lee, with eighty marines, 
captured Brown with six men, all that were left of his 
force. The seven were quickly tried, convicted of trea- 



296 NOTES 

son, and hanged. John Brown met his fate with a 
heroism which extorted the admiration of his enemies. 

John Brown was a fanatic. Yet there was ingrained 
in his character, inflexible resolution, unsurpassed 
physical and moral heroism, and a sort of stern Puritan 
idealism, all of which invite a comparison of the man 
with the psalm-singing warriors of Cromwell's time. 
These elements of character we must consider, as well 
as the political tension of the time, before we compre- 
hend the tremendous moral effect of this Quixotic raid 
upon the country at large. For a considerable period it 
dominated all political discussion. Lincoln's judgment 
of the affair expressed in this address represents the 
general opinion of the present day. 

235 : 6. What induced the Southampton insurrection. 
" In August of 1831, a slave insurrection broke out in 
Southampton, Va., under the leadership of Nat Turner, 
and more than sixty white persons, most of them 
women and children, were massacred in cold blood." 
(Burgess: The Middle Period, p. 249.) Both at the 
North and at the South it was generally believed that 
the insurrection was instigated by the Abolitionists. 
The Abolitionist historians deny that such was the case. 

235:27. The slave revolution in Hayti. The slaves 
of Hayti rose in insurrection on August 23, 1791. For 
several years a terrible struggle went on between the 
representatives of French authority and the negroes 
under the leadership of Tousaint L'Ouverture and his 
successors, ending with the independence of the negro 
republic. The contest was waged throughout its length 
with extreme ferocity and cruelty. 

235:29. The Gunpowder Plot. The Gunpowder Plot 
was a design to blow up the English House of Lords, 
conceived in 1604 by certain Catholic opponents of the 
religious policy of that body. Twenty-six barrels of 
powder were stored in a vault beneath the chamber in 
which the Lords met, and it was planned to explode the 



NOTES 297 

powder on the 5th of November, 1605. Twenty per- 
sons were admitted to the plot, who kept it a secret 
for a year and a half. Ultimately, however, one of the 
number, wishing to warn a particular friend among the 
Lords, despatched him a mysterious note of warning, 
which led to an investigation, and the discovery of the 
plot. Guy Fawkes, the leader, and all his accomplices, 
were arrested and executed, or else killed in resisting 
arrest. 

237:10. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon. On 
January 14, 1858, a gang of desperadoes under Felice 
Orsini attempted to assassinate Napoleon IIL As the 
gang had made London its base of operations, a strong 
feeling of resentment against England arose in France 
because its members had found shelter there. 

237:17. Helper's Book. Hinton R. Helper was the 
author of "The Impending Crisis of the South," a book 
published in 1857. Because of its bitter attack upon the 
economic and moral aspects of slavery, the book pro- 
duced a great sensation, and its author, a Southern man, 
writing from the point of view of the "poor whites," 
was obliged to become a fugitive. 



THE END 



"One of the best series of annotated school texts that have 
ever been produced.''— Z?«^/. 

ENGLISH READINGS 

i67no, cloth. Prices net 

PROSE 

Addison : Selections. Edited by Edward B. Reed, Assistant 
Professor in Yale University. 80 cents. 

Arnold : Prose Selections. Edited by Lewis E. Gates, some- 
time Professor in Harvard University. 75 cents. 

Burke : Selections. Edited by Bliss Perry, Professor in Harvard 
University. 75 cents. 

Coleridge : Prose Selections. Edited by Henry A. Beers, Pro- 
fessor in Yale University. 50 cents. 

De duincey : The English Mail Coach and Joan of Arc. Edited 
by James Morgan Hart, Professor in Cornell University. 50 
cents. 

Dryden : Essays on the Drama. Edited by William Strunk, 
Jr., Professor in Cornell University. 60 cents. 

Johnson: B>asselas. Edited by Oliver Farrar Emerson, Pro- 
fessor in Western Reserve University. 50 cents. 

Johnson : Selections. Edited by Charles G. Osgood, Preceptor 
in Princeton University, go cents. 

Landor : Selections from the Imaginary Conversations. 

Edited by Alphonso G. NEWCOMER, Professor in Leland Stan- 
ford University. 60 cents. 

Macaulay : Essays on Milton and Addison. Edited by James 
Arthur Tufts, Professor in the Phillips Exeter Academy. 35 
cents. 

Macaulay and Carlyle : Croker's BoswelPs Johnson. The com- 
plete essays, with brief notes and an introduction by W. 
Strunk, Jr., Professor in Cornell University. 50 cents. 

Nettleton's Old Testament Narratives. Selected and edited by 
G. H. Nettleton, Assistant Professor in Yale University. 60 
cents. 

Newman : Prose Selections. Edited by Lewis E. Gates, some- 
time Professor in Harvard University. Buckram^ qo cents. 
Cloth, 75 cents. 

Pater: Prose Selections. Edited by E. E. Hale, Jr., Professor in 

Union College. 75 cents. 

Poe : Selections from his Critical Writings. Edited by F. C. 
Prescott, Assistant Professor in Cornell University. 75 cents. 

Buskin: Sesame and Lilies. Edited by Robert K. Root, 
Ph.D., Preceptor in Princeton University. 35 cents. 

Swift : Prose Selections. Edited by Frederick C. Prescott, 
Assistant Professor in Cornell University. 75 cents. 

Thackeray: English Humorists. Edited by William Lyon 
Phelps, Professor in Yale University. 80 cents. 



^ 



ENGLISH READINGS (Continued) 

FORMS OF DISCOURSE 

Andrews's Specimens of Discourse. Selected and edited by 
ARTHUR L. Andrews, Instructor in Cornell University. 60 
cents. 

Baker's Specimens of Argrumentation. Chosen and edited by 
George p. Bakek, Professor in Harvard University. 50 cents. 

Baldwin's Specinxens of Prose Description. Edited by Charles 
Sears Baldwin, Ph.D., Professor in Yale University. 50 cents. 

Bouton's The Lincoln-Douirlas Debates. Edited by A. L. 
BOUTON, Professor in New York University. 60 cents. 

Brewster's Specimens of Prose Narration. Chosen and edited 
by William T. Brewster, Professor in Columbia University. 
50 cents. 

Lamont's Specimens of Exposition. Selected and edited by 
Hammond Lamont, formerly Professor in Brown University. 
50 cents. 

Lewis's Specimens of the Forms of Discourse. By Edwin 
Herbert Lewis, Professor in Lewis Institute, Chicago. 60 
cents. 

Nettleton's Specimens of the Short Story. Selected and edited 
by George H. Nettleton, Ph.D., Assistant Professor in Yale 
University. 50 cents. 

POETRY AND THE DRAMA 

Byron : Selections. Edited, with introduction and notes, by F. I. 
Carpenter, Associate Professor in the University of Chicago. 
$1.00. 

Ford: The Broken Heart. Edited by Clinton Scollard, some- 
time Professor in Hamilton College. 60 cents. 

Lyly: Endymion. Edited by George P. Baker, Professor in 
Harvard University. 85 cents. 

Marlowe: Edward II. And selections from Tamburlaine the 
Great, and the Poems. Edited by Edward T. McLaughlin, 
Professor in Yale University. 60 cents. 

Milton : Minor English Poems. Edited by Martin W. Sampson, 
Professor in Cornell University. 60 cents. 

Pope: Selections. Edited by Edward B. Reed, Ph.D., Assistant 
Professor in Yale University. 75 cents. 

Shakespeare : Merchant of Venice. Edited by Thomas M. Par- 
ROTT, Professor in Princeton University. 35 cents. 

Tennyson : The Princess. Edited, with introduction, notes, and 
analytical questions, by L. A. SHERMAN, Professor in the Uni- 
versity of Nebraska. 35 cents. 

HENRY HOLT & CO. |?,«^£J^«*."'Ji.K 

RD-5 M 









^°-^* 






7(^* o V 












A° "V '.-I- .j,^ o ..TT' .0-' "'•^ 



DEC 7 9v\ 4? ,'i%°-. ''■^ v.'Jm^*"^ 

ST. AUGUSTINE S^', <tf> <*• .'J^K/^' "^ ♦* '.^JBT*'''' 



